Talk:King Edward VII-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 00:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this one. —Ed!^(talk) 00:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

It is reasonably well written:
Pass External links, dup links and dab links look good. Copyvio detector returns green.
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Pass Ref 26 backs up what is cited in the text. Other offline references accepted in good faith.
It is broad in its coverage:
- Are there any characteristics from these boats that were specifically improved upon in subsequent classes?
Added a couple of lines on this - in short, no, the Lord Nelsons were an entirely new design
- Would think a unit cost would be useful on this article, though as I mentioned in the individual ship articles, that can be something hard to find.
As I said in the ship reviews you did, I don't generally like including this information based on the inflation problem.
- "The reason multiple boiler arrangements were adopted was to compare the effectiveness of different boiler types." -- Which configuration was deemed most successful?
Curiously, Burt doesn't say, apart from that the mixed arrangement in general was unsatisfactory.
- Seeing the convert template used in some places but not others; should be consistent (ie, armour section: "The armoured deck was 2 in of mild steel, apart from the central portion of the hull, where it was reduced to 1 in (25 mm)..")
Each measurement is converted on first use and not thereafter - the 2" one is converted in the previous paragraph
- Might seem clear, but perhaps worth adding a note for the ships' naming scheme or why it was decided to name them in this fashion.
Added a bit on this.
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass No problems there.
It is stable:
Pass No problems there.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass Seven images all tagged PD as appropriate.
Other:
On Hold Nothing major, just holding for some clarifications.
Thanks again Ed! Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated! With all this done, I think I've got what I need. Going to Pass the GAN now. Well done. —Ed!^(talk) 22:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]