Talk:G3 battlecruiser/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   It should link to Scuttling of the German fleet in Scapa Flow.

   Done.

   You should use "1" with {{sclass}} instead of "3" - right now you've got battlecruiser linked every time you mention the Admiral, Lexington, etc. classes

   Agreed.

   I don't think I've seen "Dreadnought" italicized when referring to the type of battleship.

   I don't know where that came from; fixed.

   The consequent weight savings were negated by additional hull and machinery weights and the ship displaced only slightly less than 'K3' although it could be docked in Rosyth and Portsmouth and pass through both canals, once the Suez Canal had been deepened. - this seems overly long. Can you split it?

   How does it read now?

   Better, but I've always been told you can't start a sentence with "however," so I fixed that. Parsecboy (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

   How do you divide 20 boilers equally between 9 boiler rooms? Is this a typo?

   Yep.

   Out of curiosity, I take it two of the boiler rooms had an extra boiler? Why was that? Parsecboy (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

   It's a little odder than that. Two of the center boiler rooms had four each while the wing boiler rooms had either 1 or 2 each, depending on the available width of the ship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

   inspired by contemporary U.S. Navy battleship designs starting with the Nevada-class battleship - this makes it sound like the Nevadas were contemporaries of G3, but they were designed 10 years before. I also think "inspired" is the right word - perhaps "pioneered" would be better.

   I agree, pioneered is better.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The background section states that 16.5 inch guns were adopted, but the armament section says 16 inch guns were planned. What happened?

   Late change as the design was being finalized.

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):

   Any chance of a line-drawing? The model photo is nice, but sort of hard to see where everything is.

   The line-drawings I've seen are the original British sketches, with the smaller armament positions only indicated by crosses. IMO, the model is better at showing these along with the plethora of directors, etc. Pity I had to reduce it for fair-use; the original is quite large.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

   If they're the original sketches, wouldn't they be PD under Template:PD-BritishGov? Parsecboy (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

   That's a good point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: