Talk:HMS Thames (1885)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 02:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Will come back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Section 1; para 1; sentence 1; "with more armour" may revised as "with better armour"
  • The armour was thicker and there was more of it, so I think that "more" is OK.
• Section 1; para 1; consistency error; In the para maximum speed is mentioned as "18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)" and in the infobox it is "17 kn (31 km/h; 20 mph)". The same error with the ranges also, "8,750 nautical miles (16,200 km; 10,070 mi) at a speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)" in prose, and "3,500 nmi (6,500 km; 4,000 mi) at 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)" in infobox.
  • Good catch.
• Section 2; Who is "Hon. Mrs. Algernon Littleton"? Please mention something about her capacity (if available).
  • My source comments that even he hasn't been able to figure out who she was. My best guess is the wife of some aristocratic byblow.
• Section 2.1; para 1; Please mention the namesake of the ship. I think it is for Louis Botha, a South African general and later Prime Minister of SA, and also add the same to infobox.
  • Good idea for the main body, already in the infobox.

• Section 2.1; para 1; "where they arrived two days later", "they"? It is only one ship right? Please revise this.
• Section 2.1; para 2; sentence 1; "He donated it to a trust", who is "he"? Because just in prior sentence, Minister of Defence was mentioned. It creates some confusion whether he donated or the owner.
  • Indeed.
• Section 2.1; para 2; "The Board of Control offered the ship to the RN", which "Board of Control"? Please mention.

@Sturmvogel 66: Nice work. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

All done. Thanks for your thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)