Talk:HMS Collingwood (1882)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 10:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll be back in an hour. JAGUAR  10:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments

• "Collingwood was not significantly damaged during an accidental collision" - you could mention that she badly damaged the Curacoa
  • Yeah, but remember that the lede's a summary and the important thing is not what she did to the other ship, but what damaged was done to her.
• "by the four French Terrible-class" - link Terrible-class ship of the line? If it's correct?
• Nope, I need to write the stubs for these ships once this thing is done.
• "Barnaby was severely criticized" - criticised
• " Reed believed that this weakness meant that the ship could be sunk from the consequent uninhibited flooding if her unarmored ends" - unarmoured
• " the ship's draught increased by another 6 inches" - convert to metric
• Done in the armament section
• "The main ammunition hoists protected by armoured tubes with walls 10–12 inches thick" - The main ammunition hoists were protected by armoured tubes with walls 10–12 inches thick
• "Collingwood accidentally collided with the cruiser Curacoa" - I'm probably overthinking this, but why is the 'HMS' prefix missing?
• No dead links (in other words, the only link isn't dead!)
• No dab links

Those were all of the minor issues I could find. Is it just me or did every Royal Navy ship collide with another back in those days LOL. JAGUAR  13:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Many thanks for tackling these so promptly. As always, I'm happy to help you win the GA reviewing portion of this contest.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of them. I'm always keeping an eye out for any of the Welsh GANs up at the moment! This meets the criteria now. JAGUAR  21:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)