Talk:HMS Hindustan (1903)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 17:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Will look at this one. —Ed!^(talk) 17:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Pass Dab links, dup links and external links tools all show no problems. Copyvio tool returns green.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass Offline sources accepted in good faith, checks of Google Books return results generally in line with article content.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Not yet

   • Any idea of unit cost for ships of the class? Also when the budget for construction was authorized?

   • See my comment on the Commonwealth review on unit cost, and the King Edward VIIs were ordered under the 1901, 1902, and 1903 estimates, but Burt doesn't give a specific breakdown that I see.

   • "Grand Fleet commander, Admiral John Jellicoe, ordered Bradford to take the 3rd Battle Squadron" -- No first reference to Bradford.

   • Fixed

   • "during which a German U-boat attacked the battleships but failed to score a hit.[13]" -- any idea which one? Can be a footnote if not clear.

   • No, unfortunately

   • "and collided with and badly damaged the destroyer HMS Wrestler in May 1918." -- Should note if no damage to this ship, and any damage to Wrestler.

   • Clarified that Hindustan was not damaged

   • Should be a mention of if there were any battle honours, or none if applicable.

   • Nothing I've seen in Burt or elsewhere.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass Four images cited to PD or CC where appropriate.

7. Other:

   On Hold Pending a few fixes. —Ed!^(talk) 17:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   Thanks again, Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Pass All of this works. As is the article meets the GA criteria to me. Well done! —Ed!^(talk) 00:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)