Talk:Albion-class landing platform dock/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 01:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead should note that only one ship in the class is now active
• "their flight decks were used to support airborne operations by helicopters and Sea Harrier jets" - the flight decks did more than 'support' operations; they were used as a base for operations. I suggest using a more active word here.
• Can anything be said about how the ships fit into the British amphibious force? I presume that their role is to land the initial waves' heavy equipment during amphibious operations, while most troops are landed by Ocean?
• What's the non-overload troop complement of the ships?
• The lead says that the ships can carry "Thirty-one large trucks and thirty-six smaller vehicles and main battle tanks" while the body of the article states that they can carry "thirty-one large trucks and thirty-six smaller vehicles[3] or six Challenger 2 tanks and thirty armoured personnel carriers." These two figures seem inconsistent.
• The information about the ships' crew and troop complement would be best placed in the para about what they can carry rather than that about their engines
• The 'Extended readiness' section should probably note the critical response to this measure, and what it means for the British ampibious force (eg, for instance, that there will be considerable periods each year when no LPDs are available as the single active ship is undergoing maintenance and/or crew leave)
• Reference 9 (to '"Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty"') needs a page number. These running costs seem rather low - do they exclude crew costs?
• The quote marks around "extended readiness" in the 'HMS Albion' section are unnecessary
• I suggest establishing a category at commons for the ships and adding a link to it here.
• Are you sure that http://www.naval-technology.com/ is a reliable source? In my experiance it's mainly based on press releases from the manufacturers of weapons. I'd suggest consulting a copy of Jane's Fighting Ships or equivalent instead.
• Can anything be said about the ships' command and control facilities? These appear to be an important feature of the design.

Assessment against GA criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Nomination withdrawn Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Sorry Nick real life getting in the way I just don't have the time to follow this up. I was going to delete the nomination but forgot, Thanks for taking the time to review it. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries Jim. Should I fail the review, or leave it open for a while? Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Its probably best to fail, I hate to say. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, will do. Let me know if you'd like to reactivate the review though. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)