Talk:HMS Royal Oak (1892)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 13:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll aim to get to this on the weekend. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Toolbox checks -- no dab or EL issues.
Prose/content/structure -- please check I haven't altered meaning with my (fairly minor) copyedit; only thing outstanding is that the data for the torpedo tubes seems to differ a fair bit between text and infobox, so some reconciliation might be necessary.
Images/sources -- no concerns.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Your edits look fine, although I'm not sure that the issue is with the torpedo tubes. She had seven when completed and four of them were removed in 1902. Do I need to rephrase that for clarity?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry mate, for some reason I didn't see your response highlighted in my watchlist -- the discrepancy doesn't seem to be in the number but in the size of tubes -- 14-in in the text and 18-in in the infobox... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- D'oh! Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Cool -- passing now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- D'oh! Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry mate, for some reason I didn't see your response highlighted in my watchlist -- the discrepancy doesn't seem to be in the number but in the size of tubes -- 14-in in the text and 18-in in the infobox... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)