Talk:HMS Dreadnought (1906)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 22:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Hi, I am reviewing this article and will be adding comments as I go. Xtzou (Talk) 22:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" After Jutland, she was relegated to coast defense duties in the English Channel, only rejoining the Grand Fleet in 1918. She was reduced to reserve in 1918" - under Career it says "Dreadnought was put into reserve at Rosyth in February 1919."
- Good catch.

In the first para, two sentences start with "A related issue was that" - repetitious and needs rewording.
- Done--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"with a main battery of a dozen twelve-inch guns in eight turrets, twelve inches of belt armour," - here the numbers are spelled out,
" to include a secondary armament of 9.2-inch (234 mm) that could fight at longer ranges than the 6-inch (152 mm) gun on older ships, but a proposal to arm them solely with twelve-inch guns was rejected" - here there is a mixture of spelled out and numbers. Sometimes this is warranted for the sake of clarification, but the use here seems inconsistent. There needs to be consistency throughout the article on this issue. (It is very distracting the way it is.) See MOS - Numbers
- This is a conflict between the conversion template and the MOS. I've changed all (I hope) numbers to digits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a need for this heading? It only contains two sentences which could just be added to the section above.

"This was deemed necessary after the Russian battleship Tsesarevich was deemed to have survived a Japanese torpedo hit by virtue of her heavy internal bulkhead during the Russo-Japanese War." - repeat of "deemed" so needs rewording.

Is this header needed? Couldn't the statements under it just go under Description with no separate header?
- Done
"Dreadnought were significantly larger than her predecessors of the Lord Nelson-class." - should this be "was significantly"?
- Indeed it should be.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"During her April–May 1915 the two guns from 'A' turret were reinstalled" - is there a word left out here? And perhaps a comma?
- They were from A turret's roof.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some minor copy edits in the article; please revert any errors I may have introduced.

Xtzou (Talk) 14:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: Clearly written.

B. MoS compliance: Complies with required elements of MOS
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: Reliable sources

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: Sets the context

B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Pass!