Talk:HMS Raven II/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 07:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
• Disambiguations: two dab links [3]:
  • Tarsus
  • Collier
• Linkrot: External links check out [4] (no action required).
• Alt text: Image lacks alt text [5] (suggestion only).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks using Google reveal no issues [6] (no action required).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • "HMS Raven II was a seaplane carrier of the Royal Navy used during World War I...", consider a minor reword as "HMS Raven II was a seaplane carrier of the Royal Navy during World War I." (suggestion only)
    • I prefer the current wording because it emphasizes that she was only briefly in British service.
  • This is a little unclear: "...she was seized whilst in Port Said, Egypt and was requisitioned for service under...", seized by who?
  • Missing word here: "...and its primary duty was watch Turkish positions..."
  • Not sure about this: "...her aircraft dropped 91 20 pounds (9.1 kg)...", should this be "...her aircraft dropped ninety-one 20-pound (9.1 kg)..." per WP:ORDINAL.
  • Some inconsistency in language as use seem to use Ottoman and Turkish interchangably. Perhaps chose one and use it consistently?
  • "...one 65 pounds (29 kg) bomb and eight 16 pounds (7.3 kg)...", should be "...one 65-pound (29 kg) bomb and eight 16-pound (7.3 kg)..." as they are adjectives.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • All major points cited using WP:RS.
  • Consistent citation style used throughout.
  • No issues with OR.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • All major aspects appear to be covered without being too detailed.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues here.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • All recent edits look constructive.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

  • Image has a fair use rationale and appears to be appropriate for the article. Do you know what date the photo was taken? This should be added to the discription if available.
    • Be nice to know when, because she sure looks dirty. Makes me wonder if it's a late picture and she's a collier.
      • No problem. Anotherclown (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Only a couple of minor points above to addresss. Happy to discuss any points you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
    • All done. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Too easy. Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)