 | HMS Aboukir (1900) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 17, 2014. (Reviewed version). |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMS Aboukir (1900) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
.svg)
POV
editThis article has no citations for its very unkind comments about what were in their day very powerful ships. It is not in the least bit neutral.--Toddy1 19:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad somebody has respect for these ships! Unfortunately, shipbuilding and naval practice saw rapid advances in the early 1900s leading up to the Great War, and these ships were quite outdated by the time they were sunk - all three in nine minutes as they didn't have destroyer escort at the time. Sad but true. I've removed the tag for now; please review the sources I left right after the article mentions the Live Bait Squadron. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edwin Herdman (talk • contribs) 11:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
re-write?
editThis page deals mostly with the 7th Cruiser Squadron) and the Action of 22 September 1914, both of which have their own pages now. I'm proposing to re-write the service history section so it's principally about Aboukir (not that there's a lot to say, unfortunately.) Opinions? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- this is always a problem: you can't really have an article describing the history of a ship without describing how it came to be sunk, especially if that is most of what is generally considered important about it. At minimum there would have to be a short description of the sinkings here and a 'see also'. But since the description is relatively short anyway, what needs cutting? Just add a see also anyway? I dont see a service history section? Sandpiper (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've been bold and changed this; I've made a "Service history" and "Fate" section, and cut out the detail already at the "Squadron..." and "Action..." pages. If that isn't OK, let me know. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Aboukir (1900)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 00:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll review this one shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- No disambig links found (no action required)
- Checklinks indicates wrecksite.eu is "likely dead" returning 403 error, but manual check indicates it to be fine (no action required)
- There's a single duplicate link: destroyer, which should be removed per WP:OVERLINK
- The article appears to be stable (no action required)
- Image sourcing and licencing is in order (no action required)
- Article referencing appears to be in order (no action required)
- The infobox specifies belt armour of 2-6 in, but the prose seems to indicate 5-6 in of armour there. Did I miss something, or is there a typo someplace?
- According to WP:NUMERAL, sentences should not begin with a figure. Perhaps it would be the best to rephrase "527 men were killed in the attack." currently found in the lead accordingly.
Nice article, interesting, informative and pleasure to read. Just a few minor issues in its way to GA listing. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- All fixed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Passed. You're welcome.--Tomobe03 (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)