Talk:HMS Howe (1885)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Howe (1885)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll finish this within two hours. JAGUAR  14:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments

• The lead needs to be expanded somewhat to comply per WP:LEADLENGTH. A mention of her career etc would do it
  • You've got almost the entirety of her career in the lede already. Leadlength says one or two paras for a 15K article; this one's only 6.2K.
• "The Admiral class was built in response to French ironclad battleships of the Hoche and Marceau classes and Howe and her sister ship, Rodney, were enlarged and improved versions of Collingwood" - I think this sentence is too long to read comfortably and needs a break. How about something like The Admiral class was designed in response to French ironclad battleships of the Hoche and Marceau classes. Howe and her sister ship, Rodney, were enlarged and improved versions of Collingwood
  • Agreed, I shouldn't have tried to tie them together.
• "with the main ammunition hoists protected by armored tubes" - armoured
• "...armored tubes with walls 12 inches thick" - convert to metric
  • Converted on the first use in the Armament section.
• "The deck of the central armored citadel" - armoured
• No dead links
• No dab links

I realise that my reviews of early Welsh battleships are short but I don't think it can be helped due to the length and solid writing of the articles! JAGUAR  19:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no complaints, you're giving them a close-enough reading to catch my annoying lapses out of BritEng. Thanks for reviewing this one so promptly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them quickly once again! I try to make my reviews as comprehensive as possible, although they get to the point. Anyway, promoted JAGUAR  19:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits (and omissions ) in April 2016

Friendly greetings Sturmvogel. I wonder if you can look at your edits of 21:30, 7 April 2016 and the 21:51, 7 April 2016 version which is uhm ..different! I'm particularly saddened that this removed the improvements section which had what I would regard as important details relating to the problems of delayed construction. Was this intentional and/or have you any objections to them being restored? I note that USS Maine (ACR-1) also took 9 years to build & was out of date when completed. Regards JRPG (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That material belongs in the class article, not in the individual ship articles.