Talk:HMS Ocean (1898)

HMS Ocean (1898) 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 Ocean (1898) 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
October 30, 2017	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.

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)

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

Shipwrecks Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles 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.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

Lady Elizabeth (1879)
- Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
- Improve grammar
- Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
- Discuss desired additions -None

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Ocean (1898)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 19:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Onto it! Would be making straight forward changes as I go, so please feel free to revert if I make any mistake. I hope you enjoy the review. Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time! Parsecboy (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could expand the lead a teeny bit more? It can be ignored too, but just an opinion!

why are we having a dash in "12-inch"?
- Because "12-inch" is a compound adjective
To be consistent, I think it would be better to chose either inch or in.
- Done
"in August 1914" is it in 1910?
- I'm not sure what you're asking

Ok, so ignore this comment. I am unsure too, of what I typed... I think I mis-typed something!

Link East Asia.
- Done
"was protected with 6 in", "had 12 in" convert template for 6 in and 12 in!
- Removed
Devonport should be linked at first mention.
- Fixed
Link Royal Navy in body.
- Done
"in late February 1915" later we have the mention of 28 february. So, is the first event sure to be antedating the second one? This is because by "late", we still do not know the date!
- Yeah, Burt doesn't give a specific date, unfortunately.
"4 March" is it 1915?
- Yeah

Would it not be better to also mention the year? This is because it is the start of a new paragraph, and just two lines below it we have an event of 1914. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about changing that "in 1914" to "the previous year"? Parsecboy (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that is cool too! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mention years "7 March" and "18 March" too,to provide a clear picture of the timeframes!
- In general, it's not appropriate to include years in a narrative like this, especially when we're talking about the span of a few weeks.

parsecboy This is all what I could find! Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Regarding my contributions

How have you come to the conclusion that the source I added isn’t reliable? It was used on the article Seyit Çabuk, HMS Ocean was struck by an artillery shell before striking a mine. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 22:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the site; it's clearly an amateur project. Parsecboy (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The event actually happened, I’m not on a stable connection right now but just search “Seyit Çabuk” on the web, he fired 3 shots at HMS Ocean and partially disabled it causing it to strike a mine. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 22:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The site is reliable, it’s amateur appearance has nothing to do with reliability. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 22:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read WP:RS, did you? I strongly suggest you do. As to the site, no, it's not reliable. For it to be considered reliable, it would have to be produced by experts in the field. Since the site does not disclose the identity of it's author, we can only conclude that it's a hobbyist site, and thus, not usable. Parsecboy (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I’m being annoying, I’m trying to get a better connection and it’s putting a lot of stess on me. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 22:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem, there's no deadline to get anything done here. Parsecboy (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodrigo Valequez: - the source you added appears to be a news site. Can you improve the reference with the {{cite news}} template? It looks like it has a byline and a date of publication, but I don't read Turkish and don't entirely trust Google Translate for this sort of thing. Also, can you provide a translated title with the |trans-title= parameter? Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll get it done as soon as possible, I’ll add the translated title but I won’t be able to add byline and date of publication today. I’m repairing my computer and I can’t contribute as well on mobile, thanks! Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 18:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m having some issues with the template, could I translate the title for you to add the template? The title translates to “Who was Corporal Seyit? How much did the shell he lifted weigh?”, the second part actually translates to “How many kilos was the shell lifted by Koca Seyit?“ but I don’t think it would be suitable because of it’s length. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 18:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the translated title to the article - I was actually going to suggest you posting the translation here if you weren't able to add it to the template, but you beat me to it. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I’ve read WP:RS before, I assumed the source was reliable because that’s what most Turkish-made websites look like (We aren’t the best coders). I’ve been making minor edits as an IP for the past 3 years and I haven’t gotten the hang of citing. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 19:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]