Talk:HSwMS Tapperheten (1901)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 19:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Image appropriately licensed. Can another one be added?
  • Ship's badge and another image added.
• secondary armament mounted to improve Suggest revised
  • Reworded.
• and 87.5 m (287 ft) at the waterline Add "measured" to improve flow
  • Added.
• draught "of"
  • Added.
• Hyphenate triple expansion and add link to shaft horsepower
  • Done.
• 21 cm does not round exactly to 8 inches. Change the 0 in the conversion template to 1 for all weapons. This may be a problem of designations being rounded to the nearest cm. Or not.
  • Good spot. Both "21-cm" and "8.2-in" are used in the literature, so I have adjusted the conversion template accordingly. The same is true for the secondary armament.
• Link amidships, searchlight
  • Added.
• You sure about the Krupp armor being cemented to the teak? I ask because cementation is a technical term involved in the production of Krupp armor
  • Amended.
• One or two conning towers? Disagreement between the infobox and the text.
  • Corrected.
• struck by poor weather Be more specific
  • Reworded.
• was allocated as a flagship used
  • Changed.
• considered dated outdated
  • Amended.
• reposted to Karlskrona transferred
  • Changed.

@Sturmvogel 66: Thank you for your time on this review. Please take a look at my changes. simongraham (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. There's one problem with using exact conversions for weapons that have a difference between the name and the actual bore of the gun. It can be confusing for a reader if you call something a 15 cm gun with the 5.9 inch equivalent following in parentheses and then explain that it was actually something different. I've settled on ignoring the nominal size in the infobox and then not providing a conversion in the main body for the nominal size and then explaining that the gun was actually size x. You've sort of done that here, but incompletely. You need to address it more thoroughly and I'll be happy if you can think of a better way to handle the issue than what I outlined above. But this is pretty minor and I have faith that you'll get it done one way or another.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)