Talk:Coalhouse Fort/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 07:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read through and review properly tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

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

"Since 1985 it has been leased to a voluntary preservation group " - can we name them in the lead?

Yep, done. Prioryman (talk)

"granite facing and cast-iron shields" - worth linking granite and cast-iron?

Already linked in the infobox, I didn't think it was worth repeating the linking. Prioryman (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd normally have expected the first use in the main text to be linked, but its not a GA requirement. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"during its seventy years of military usage as its role in the river's defensive system evolved" - you probably need a comma after "usage" to avoid "usage as its role..." being misread

I've reworded this slightly. Prioryman (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"batteries" - worth linking for non-military readers
"the Crown" - worth linking

Both done. Prioryman (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Five blockhouses were built along the Thames between Gravesend and Higham – two on the north bank at Tilbury and East Tilbury and three on the south bank at Gravesend, Milton (near the present New Tavern Fort and Highham" - there's an open bracket here. Is it worth linking to the specific blockhouse articles?

I've fixed the open bracket, but I'm afraid there are no articles at present for the blockhouses - there's nothing left of them other than a few ruins at Gravesend, I think.Prioryman (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added links in for a couple of them. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"magazine" - worth linking on first use

Done. Prioryman (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"to add a small expense magazine" - what's a small expense magazine? (the only thing I could think of was a low-cost, cheap magazine, but that sounds an odd way of phrasing such a thing...

It's a magazine containing ammunition for immediate use (or expenditure, hence the name). I've added the explanation to the article. Prioryman (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - I wouldn't have guessed that one! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"four 24-pdr. cannon" - the MilHist project would suggest that this was expressed as "four 24 pounds (11 kg)^* cannon" I think - but that's not a GA requirement!

Just as well, because that would be a very idiosyncratic and anachronistic way of describing them! They're always referred to as "X-pounder" cannon - see e.g. 24-pounder long gun. Prioryman (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"of the Rifled Muzzle Loader (RML) and Rifled Breech Loader (RBL) types" - is the capitalisation right here?

The sources I've used employ both capitalised and uncapitalised spellings and there seems to be no common standard. Prioryman (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" ships of more than 400 tons " - does this need an equivalent imperial/metric value? (I'm not sure...)

Not sure either to be honest, isn't it normal though to express ship weights in tons? Prioryman (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"a boom defence" - worth linking boom?
"12.5-inch RMLs weighed up to 38 tons apiece" - metric equivalents needed
"voice pipes" - worth wikilinking

All three above done. Prioryman (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Coalhouse Fort became an "emergency" battery during the anti-invasion preparations of the early Second World War existing 6-inch guns were replaced in July 1941 with two 5.5-inch guns taken from the ill-fated HMS Hood before its sinking." - there's a comma or full-stop or something missing here.

Thanks, fixed. Prioryman (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Extended Defence Officer's Post (XDO)" - is XDO needed here? (you don't refer to the abbreviation again later - although I now note that the whole phrase is repeated later, again with the abbreviation in brackets)

Fair point, I've amended this. Prioryman (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Home Guard" - worth linking
"Sea Cadet" - ditto
"small-arms" - worth linking

All three above done. Prioryman (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" service crest" - could this be linked to something?

I've not found anything it could be linked to, unfortunately.

Would Cap badge work ? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Thurrock Borough Council" -worth linking

It's linked in the infobox. Prioryman (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A four-mile riverside walk " - metric equivalent needed. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Prioryman (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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;

Looking good at the moment. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(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;

Looking good at the moment. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(c) it contains no original research.

The Inflation template is misapplied in the Second Coalhouse Fort section; as per the template instructions, it uses CPI figures, so can't be used for comparing sums of this sort. (I can bore for England on this topic if you're interested in more details about this...!) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage:

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

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

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

Neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

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

All tagged etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I'm not quite sure though about where we go from here. What do you suggest doing about the inflation template? Prioryman (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work through the prose and finish that bit off later on... (was distracted by work!) On the inflation side, my advice would be either leave it out and stick with the straight 19th century figure, or to consult something like the measuringworth.com site for alternative measures. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone with the straight 19th century figure. Thanks for the comments - hopefully that covers everything. Prioryman (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]