Talk:HMS Britannia (1904)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 22:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: - wonder if you've lost track of this (and the other two)? Parsecboy (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Nah, just distracted.

• No DABs, external links OK
• I don't believe that Jane's identifies its artists like Brassey's does, so I think that PD-1923 is better for File:King-Edward-Class.png. Other images licensed appropriately.
  • Done
• Needs a cite for her namesake, which I think is better handled wherever construction is dealt with. Just my opinion, though.
  • Added a citation
• Too much detail on her construction in the lede. I'm rather fond of "built for the Royal Navy in the first decade of the 20th Century" and "Completed in 1906,..." Hard to believe that she was completed the same year as Dreadnought!
  • See how I rewrote it
• Link Montenegro, reserve, Vice Admiral (with a hyphen!), Portland, cruiser, destroyer, ran aground, listed
  • All done except Montenegro - I think the MoS advises against linking countries
• Fixed the conversions in the infobox, no need for four digits.
  • Thanks
• Replaced the link in the infobox for her engines, too much detail for too general a link. Anytime you have to go over a single line in the infobox, think hard about whether that detail is necessary for what's supposed to be a summary of her specifications.
  • Good point
• Abbreviate the conversion for the torpedo tubes in the infobox.
  • Done
• Fix your conversion for 8-inch guns
  • Done
• Is there any info on trial speeds?
  • Curiously, Burt only gives the average IHP, revs, and boiler pressure for Britannia's 8-hour trials, but no speed. I figure those three are the least relevant, so didn't bother including them.
• Torpedo tubes were bow, stern, broadside?
  • Added
• No forward bulkhead?
  • No, that was a change they made with the Londons - they dropped the forward bulkhead in favor (or I suppose in this case, favour) of extending the belt to the stem
• Typo and 9.2 turrets had
  • Fixed
• If you decide to eliminate the detailed construction data from the lede like I suggested, remember to add the links to all the construction terms in the service section
  • Done
• Under a fleet reorganisation "As part of..."?
  • Works for me
• I'd suggest extracting the ship's captains from the Navy Lists before going to ACR with this.
  • Will do, eventually
• I'll look at the others once you've incorporated all the relevant fixes into them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Parsecboy Did you notice this earlier?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but I've been out of town over the weekend - I've gotten partway through, but it's time to dash off again, so I'll finish up tomorrow morning. Parsecboy (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    • And the effective range of an excuse is?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
      • However far it'll get me. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)