Talk:HMS Sultan (1775)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 15:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I'll start this in the next couple of days. auntieruth (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- made a few minor tweaks toward the end, fixed a couple of verbs; not sure article should have convert template in it. Are these nautical miles?
- Sorry, missed this comment. Yes, UK nautical miles which are slightly longer than international nautical miles but not sufficiently so as to make a difference.--Ykraps (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have an image of a similar ship for the info box? Infobox looks strange ....auntieruth (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Images of Royal Oak-class ships are rare. There's this one File:HMS Vengeance (1774).jpg or this File:George III reviewing the Fleet at Spithead 22 June 1773.jpg. Any preference?--Ykraps (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think the first (Vengeance), cropped and labeled as an example of the ships. ?? Also, possibly use the [convert: needs a number] template nmi|km|lk=on auntieruth (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've added to the article and made a request to have it cropped at Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Photography_workshop#HMS_Sultan_GAN.--Ykraps (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've also added the conversion template for nmi. I think I've gotthem all but let me know if I've missed any.--Ykraps (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nice job. auntieruth (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think the first (Vengeance), cropped and labeled as an example of the ships. ?? Also, possibly use the [convert: needs a number] template nmi|km|lk=on auntieruth (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Images of Royal Oak-class ships are rare. There's this one File:HMS Vengeance (1774).jpg or this File:George III reviewing the Fleet at Spithead 22 June 1773.jpg. Any preference?--Ykraps (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail: