Talk:Courageous-class battlecruiser/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Yoenit (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sturmvogel, I will attempt to review this article. This is my first attempt at GAR, but you are a veteran of the process, so if I screw up somewhere please say so. Yoenit (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

After my first readthrough I must say I was very surprised that the article ended with the ships conversion to aircraft carriers and no link was given to the followup article Courageous class aircraft carrier. If have some other comments, but that is mostly copyediting related and I will wait with them until after my second readthrough. Yoenit (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The process really isn't very hard. Personally, I like to use the Template:GAList2 to help organize my review. The main things are to check the quality of the prose in terms of organization, grammar, flow and if it needs copy-editing. Does it follow the MOS, although you needn't be too strict about that at this level. Is it fully cited, and are the citations consistent? Is it complete? This is often the hardest judgement call and it really helps to be knowledgeable about the topic to judge that. Most of the other points are minor, but remember to check the pictures used; they each need a source to verify copyright status. Many Russian ship pictures don't have a source and are unusable despite being on Commons; I have to reload them onto en.wiki as fair-use images. And, finally, you can always look at other GARs to get a feel for how they go.

You make a good point about the missing link, so I've added it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! I have copyedited the first half of the article and have the following comments:

• Is the summation following at the start of the design section a quote? The last sentence (shallow draught being of supreme importance) reads like it but you don't seem to say it is one.
  • It's a paraphrase, but the shallow draught bit is all me trying to emphasize that it was the most important design criteria.
• the all caps part of Fishers letter to Churchill should be replaced per WP:ALLCAPS, but I am unsure to what. Italics for emphasis perhaps?
  • Since it's a quote, I'm not really sure if it should be reduced to lower case, but italics could do.
• Mark I* turrets, one each fore ('A') and aft ('Y'). I have no idea what the star means here, nor why the fore turret is reffered to as A and the aft turret as Y. Any chance of clarification or wikilinking? Stars after a mark classification happen twice more, what does it mean, a modification?
  • The asterisk does indeed mean an improved version/modification. British practice was to designate the turrets by letters, starting with A and ending with X or Y. There are a lot of rules involved to deal with the middle turrets so I've never tried to codify the system in an article. I settle for a quick description with the designation and location.
• "because a class of improved Royal Sovereign-class battleships was cancelled shortly after the war began." The Royal Sovereigns were build between 1889 and 1894, perhaps you mean the Revenge class battleships?
  • Hmm... This could be a renaming issue as all of my sources call them the Royal Sovereign class except for Parkes, who does call them the Revenge class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Conway mentions Revenge is the official name, but Royal sovereign was used later for some reason. As only one vessel of the class was canceled (HMS Resistance), logic dictates it is the source of the eight 15-inch guns. Including that would be OR though.

More to come later Yoenit (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• More has come finally.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Congratulations, The article is passes the bar! An interesting read about these cute VERY GREAT INCREASE IN SPEED ships. I would recommend a copy edit if you want to improve article further.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   the diagram had pd-old but an unknown author, which makes no sense. Changed it to pd-1923, but that might also be incorrect. I am sure the image is in the public domain though, so not making a major point of it.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Yoenit (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)