Talk:HMS Caesar (1896)

HMS Caesar (1896) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

HMS Caesar (1896) is part of the Predreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 21, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
August 23, 2020	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / British / European / World War I / Operation Majestic Titan

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force
	Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Caesar (1896)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 10:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	any clue as to where the hull-mounted TT were located? Added. query: should it be The ship was commissioned? From what I understand, it's more common in BrEng to say "the ship commissioned", but I may be wrong I've actually never see that, I'm not Navy, but I believe this supports my contention? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] I suppose it's not that big of a deal, but Google Books results reveal examples of what I'm talking about. (I've removed the latter links due to them screwing with the formatting of the table, but accept that there is a valid contention that this turn of phrase is acceptable) Ok. Not sure it will pass ACR, but I'm willing to accept it here. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] was appointed in command 21 December 1901 seems too clipped, how about was appointed to command her on 21 December 1901? That works for me. query: should it be Caesar was commissioned? (couple of occasions) Caesar was rammed in fog by the barque Excelsior at Sheerness seems split, perhaps indicate by which ship, then the conditions? A good point.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	suggest the first mention of her displacement be in full (currently t instead of tons) Good idea. I wonder if the terms "seaboats" and "steamer" are too informal See how it reads now. 1900–1901 should probably be 1900–01 per WP:DATERANGE (same for 1907–08 further down) Good catch.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~Placed on hold for seven days for points to be addressed~~Passing, all points addressed