Talk:HMS Ocean (1898)/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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)

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

• 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)

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

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

• 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)

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

---

1. 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:

2. 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:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: