Talk:HMS London (1899)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 03:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in good shape. A few comments from me:

in the lead, suggest "Commissioned in the same month,..." to avoid repetition
- Good idea
suggest "naval construction ~~for~~by the Russian Navy"
- Well, the Navy wasn't building the ships themselves in most cases (apart from the ships built in the Admiralty Yards
"it was a virtual repeat of the preceding"
- Good catch
the beam conversions between the body and infobox don't match
- Fixed
the displacements are converted to LT in the body and t in the infobox
- Fixed
number of shafts not in the body
- Fixed
the speed conversions between the body and infobox don't match
- Fixed
the kW conversion between the body and infobox don't match
- Fixed
the number of 12-pounders doesn't match between the body and infobox
- Fixed
where were the TTs located? amidships?
- As at Implacable, I can't say for sure
the armour conversions between the body and infobox don't match, and are in cm in one and mm in the other
- Fixed
link Krupp armour
- Done - here and at Implacable
no crew numbers mentioned in the body
- It's there, in the second para of the Design section
no damage from the collision with SS Don Benite?
- Nothing mentioned in Burt, no
is there a useful link for Medway?
- That'd be River Medway
there is some italicisation of ship names needed
- Good catch
"were at Portland."
- Fixed
not just the "Landing at Cape Helles", suggest dropping this as London was involved in the Landing at Anzac
- Fixed as at Implacable
link 3rd Brigade (Australia)
- Done
antitorpedo nets needs a hyphen to be consistent with earlier usage
- Fixed
File:Formidable class battleship diagrams Brasseys 1906.jpg needs a US PD-1923 tag
- Already fixed
File:Hmslondon 11th and 12th battalions.jpg doesn't need a US PD tag, as Crown Copyrights expire worldwide. There is also no publication date to support the current US PD tag.
- Good point, removed.

That's me done, placing on hold for the above pretty minor matters to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]