Talk:HMS Illustrious (1896)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Illustrious (1896)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 17:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

- nice work as ever, just about to pass at GA. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

• "Her main armament removed, she served as a store ship for the remainder of the war." - might be sharper as "Her main armament was removed and she then served as a store ship for the remainder of the war."? (avoids repeating the sentence construction from the previous sentence as well)
  • Sounds good to me.
• Is it worth linking battery?
  • How about main battery instead?
• "serving as Flagship, Rear Admiral." - I found the capitalisation here a bit odd, but I suspect you know more about this than I do, so if you're happy with it, so am I. :)
  • Yeah, that's the title for the post
• "and to the Humber (where she was based at Grimsby) in December 1914." - could this be: "and to Grimsby on the Humber in December 1914. " (avoids the use of brackets)
  • Sounds fine to me.
• "disarmed harbor subsidiary service vessel" - is a harbor subsidiary service vessel one word, or should there be a comma after the first adjective of "disarmed"?
  • That's a bit of a mouthful - I shortened it to "disarmed harbour ship"
• "harbor" - is the article in Brit English or US? If the former, this should probably be "harbour"
  • Good catch.
• "to serve as an overflow ship" - I wasn't quite sure what an overflow ship was/is.
  • I'm not entirely sure either - I think that was in the article before I overhauled it. I just removed that bit for the time being.
• "She was sold for scrapping on 18 June 1920, and was scrapped at Barrow." - is there anyway to avoid the repetition of "scrapping/scrapped"?
  • Switched the second one to "broken up", which provides a handy place to link ship breaking.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.

• None found. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

• Appears neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• File:HMS Illustrious (Majestic class battleship).jpg doesn't give any publication date or location to justify the US-tag (the file page argues that because it was taken prior to 1920 it must be in the Public Domain, which isn't necessarily the case in either the US or the UK).
  • Good catch - I don't think I checked the images when I rewrote the article.
• File:Majestic class diagrams Brasseys 1902.jpg. Is there a date of death anywhere for S. W. Barnaby to support the life+70 tag? It seems very likely that he died prior to 1945, given that he was quite senior by the turn of the century, but I can't find one on-line - I suspect that your off-line sources might be better though! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Barnaby died in 1925 (according to this), which I've copied over). Parsecboy (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Yes Hchc2009 (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)