Talk:HMS Dominion/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 17:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing this one. —Ed!^(talk) 17:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Dab links, dup links and external links show no major problems. Copyvio detector returns

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass Offline references accepted in good faith. Cursory check of Google Books shows references that back up source material here.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Not Yet

   • Unit cost preferred as always, though understanding that's not common to find.

   • See my comment on the Commonwealth GAN

   • "During sweeps by the fleet, she and her sisters often steamed at the heads of divisions of the far more valuable dreadnoughts," -- One this one (and maybe the others) it might be helpful to explain, in a footnote at least, why this was the case? The ships are about 10 years old here but are already being treated as obsolete. Of course much to be said of the rapid advance in capital ship design at the time.

   • I've added a line to the Design section about the ship's rapid plunge into obsolescence

   • No first reference to Bradford again here.

   • Fixed

   • "Dominion paid off to serve as a parent ship for the Zeebrugge Raid and the first Ostend Raid." -- Explanation of a parent ship's role might make sense here.

   • Added a bit on this

   • Last graph mentions being paid off twice, with the link on the second reference, a bit confusing.

   • Moved the link and reworded the second one

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass Appropriate weight placed on a variety of sources.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass Three images tagged PD or CC where appropriate.

7. Other:

   On Hold Pending a few fixes. —Ed!^(talk) 18:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Pass My comments have been addressed to satisfaction. Well done! —Ed!^(talk) 00:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)