Talk:HMS Achilles (1863)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 20:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links - all clear (no action required)
No DAB links (no action required)
No duplicate links (no action required)
Image used in the article has an appropriate licence (no action required)

MOS and prose:

Units of measurement should be separated from the preceding figures by a non-breaking space per WP:NBSP. I noticed this at just one instance: 6,121 bm
- Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure this goes against any MOS policy, but you use 7-inch guns and seven-inch guns (and similarly so for 9-inch ones) to describe guns. Perhaps it would be good to use the spelled out form or figure consistently. This is no dealbreaker here, though.
- As per MOS, I've generally spelled out numbers below 10, but when converting them, the template required that they be written as numbers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's {{Convert/spell}} if you need to spell the quantity out. I applied one in the article now for ex. Note that there is a space between the /spell and the first pipe though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - While I live and learn! I did not know that; guess we both learned something today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Went in and cleaned up most of these, but I forgot to mention the one legitimate exception of when you have a quantity of something of a size that should be spelled out. If you spell everything out, it's hard for the reader so you leave one or the other as numbers to make things easier for the reader. Forex 7 seven-inch guns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course.
It seems to me that the first paragraph of the "Service" section would be better off as a part of the now very short first paragraph of the "Design and description" section - especially because it speaks nothing on the service of the ship, but on its construction - a topic somehow preceding armament and armour issues.
I've renamed the section Construction and service as they seem inextricably linked to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And that is a very fine course of action.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also made a few copyedits, and you might want to review those as well. Nice article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A minor point, but cannon is one of those weird words that is both singular and plural. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I did not know that - I stand corrected and a bit wiser for it!--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All clear now. Passing GAN!--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]