Talk:HMS Royal Oak (1862)

HMS Royal Oak (1862) 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.
Review: June 29, 2013. (Reviewed version).

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

Military history: Maritime / British / European

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

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Royal Oak (1862)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 11:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No disambiguation links (no action required)
External links are in order (no action required)
There is a duplicate link in the article which should be removed - wrought iron.
Images have appropriate captions (no action required)
Image "Royal Oak (1862) 2.jpg" should have a US-PD tag for proper licencing.
Referencing appears in order (no action required)

Prose:

I'm not so sure that "maximum" is the most fortunate term which could be used in ...gave the ship a maximum speed of 12.5 knots... because the maximum speed of the ship was 1kt greater under sail. I'm aware that this was the maximum under steam power, but perhaps a different term or some sort of clarification would be beneficial there. ~~On a further note: is it possible to say "a maximum", or should it be "the maximum" (not sure myself)?~~

MOS:

Perhaps it would be better to change ...20 seven-inch and four 8-inch (203 mm)... into ...20 seven-inch and 4 eight-inch (203 mm)... per WP:ORDINAL (comparable quantities).
Is there any need for single quotes in 'Rochester Riverside'?

Nice article overall. Good work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for erroneous US-PD instruction, that should have been PD-US (I fixed this now). Passing GAN--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]