Jump to content

Talk:Ersatz Monarch-class battleship/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    I'd recommend a thorough copy-edit before taking this higher than GA.  Done--Diannaa (Talk)
    You've got a mix of measurements; i.e., 350 mm guns in the lead, but 13.5 inch guns later, and then 305 mm guns after that. Done--Diannaa (Talk)
    You've also got a mixture of British/American spellings (i.e., the convert templates are giving units like "millimetre" but you've got "caliber" and "armor." If you're sticking with American English, you can add the parameter "sp=us" to the convert templates to get the proper spelling. Also, "tonne" is the British spelling for "metric ton," so you need to ensure standardization for that as well. Done--Diannaa (Talk)
    There are a number of conversions needed, for example, the displacement figures for Pitzinger's three proposals and the engine horsepower figure. Done I did nothing with the horsepower/kilowatt conversion as neither of these is a metric unit. The equivalent metric unit to the kilowatt-hour is the megajoule. --Diannaa (Talk)
    For the caliber figures, it should always be, for example, "45-caliber guns." The caliber length is a compound adjective, so it should be hyphenated. So should bore diameters, unless you're abbreviating them. So "305-millimeter guns" but not "305-mm guns". Done--Diannaa (Talk) 02:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    "better seaworthiness" - better than what? The Tegetthoffs? This should be made clear.
    What makes this website reliable? The book most of the information comes from appears to be widely available in libraries (see worldcat) - it would be better to replace the citations to the website with the book.
    I'll replace that website with the book that it cites. I've also added in the Tegetthoffs as the ship that the sentence was comparing.--White Shadows I ran away from you 15:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replaced it.--White Shadows I ran away from you 15:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's a problem; the two possible names don't appear to come from the Fitzsimmons book. Try to get the book and see if there's anything else useful in it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest I should have removed those names a long time ago. Those names are only speculative as the AH Navy had no names for them until they were launched (which never happened) Those are only guesses as to the possible names of two of the battleships. Still, I'll try to look around and see if I can find a source to them...--White Shadows I ran away from you 16:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Same with this one. I know information on this class can be hard to come by, but it's better to find books than websites of questionable reliability. You might try getting a copy of Siegfried Breyer's Battleships and Battle Cruisers, 1905-1970; it too is pretty widely available (see here for worldcat listings) so you should be able to get it via ILL.
    I'll try to find a replacement for this in the next few days. Perhaps Sokol or Breyer will assist me.--White Shadows I ran away from you 15:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've replaced that website with p. 26 from Greger's book.--White Shadows I ran away from you 18:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also added in a few citations from Sokol's book though it only mentions it in a passing comment as the wuthor tends to focus on existing ships rather than "what could have been".--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 20:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you be citing Greger when you don't have the book and it's not visible through google books? Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See here. It is on google books.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 22:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but it's not searchable. The only thing you can see is this snippet, which doesn't cover everything you've used the page for. Parsecboy (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Citation 8 b and c can be verified through google books and there is a replacement citation for 8 a somewhere....--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 00:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    File:Tegetthoff.jpg needs an actual source and date of publication for us to use it.
    Same with File:Austro-Hungarian Dreadnoughts At Pula.jpg - we need the original source and publication date, the book from 2008 obviously isn't the first.
    I've added in dates and sources to both. If there are still issues, I'll remove the images.--White Shadows I ran away from you 15:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no, the relevant date is the date of publication, not when the photo was taken. You'd need to find a source that tells you when and where the image was first published. For instance, the GWPDA has an album of naval photos all with the original publication information. This photo of Bluecher was first published in The Book of History-The World's Greatest War-Vol. XIIII in 1920, so it's PD in the US (anything published before 1923 in the US or abroad is PD in the US). Parsecboy (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry about that :) Having looked through that album, neither of the two photos are in there so I've simply replaced the photos.--White Shadows I ran away from you 16:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, copyright law is ridiculously complicated. It took me quite a long time to get the understanding of it that I have, and I am by no means an expert. Parsecboy (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I know. Had I known about those images, I would have replaced them a long time ago.--White Shadows I ran away from you 18:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

There are some problems that need to be fixed, but the article has legs. I'll be happy to leave the review open as long as you need to get those two books. I strongly suspect Sokol's book will come in handy here as well, once you get that. Parsecboy (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks much better now, so I'll pass the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ersatz_Monarch-class_battleship/GA1&oldid=1140387064"