Talk:King George V-class battleship (1939)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 01:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to this this weekend.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting with the lede and will work my way downwards as I have time. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Armaments is not plural.

The four remaining ships would all be deployed to the Pacific but Duke of York and Anson would both arrive to late to take part in hostilities, whilst King George V and Howe would both provide off-shore bombardment against such targets as the Ryukyu Islands. "too" is misspelled. Get rid of passive voice and change to simple past tense "were" "provided", etc.
Following the end of World War II, the ships were slowly phased out of service and by 1957 all of the ships had been sold off for scrap a process that was completed by numerous ship breakers between 1957 and 1958. Use a semi-colon after scrap and either link ship breakers or scrap. Suggest that the clause, "by numerous ship breakers" be deleted as too much detail for the lede.
a "holiday" from building capital ships was placed in force through 1931 Delete "placed"

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Make sure to use mdashes between dates. In general, spell out numbers less than 10.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Suggest that you add JNE to the Bibliography and cite only specific pages in citations. Need full bibliographic info for JNE articles, author, pages, etc.

Standardize format for all citations, including page #s.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Lede is in general too short, what else did they do during the war?

Is a representative cost figure available?
Infobox data is for KGV at what date? Need 20mm Oerlikon numbers.
See User:Saberwyn/Template:Infobox Ship For Dummies for guidance on how to fill out infobox. Be sure to link to standard displacement and full load.
Fuel burn figure is too detailed for infobox, save for propulsion section. Same with overload shp rating.
Need to add radars to infobox.
Provide conversions for displacement, shp and gun sizes.
Not sure how Japanese and Italian refusals to sign 2nd London Treaty are relevant to this article.
Who made the decision to use 14-inch guns? Watch out for passive voice like this (also in preceding para).
You never really specify that turbines were used in the propulsion para. Need to link turbines and boilers, as well as engine/boiler room.

B. Focused:
Not at all sure that fuel burn info isn't excessive info for an encyclopedia article and that a simple statement that her machinery was very economical, with a cite, would suffice. Fuel quality problems could also be shortened.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for undertaking this, I will try and assist in a few days.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC) I'm still pressed for time, but regarding 1B above, the wording and detail reflects the fact that G&D's info on this is incorrect and misleading, which forced a greater level of detail than would otherwise be needed. However the info on fuel quality is vital for a correct understanding of the machinery and how fuel quality issues plagued this class and the RN in general. In general, wherever there appears to be excessive detail it is because there were problems with incorrect sources.Damwiki1 (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; the fuel quality issues are barely even mentioned, if that, in any of the other reputable sources like Burt or Raven and Roberts. I'm not saying that you're wrong I just don't believe that it's really relevant for Wiki if the other sources don't mention it. You might spin that out into a separate article on fuel quality issues during WW2 for the RN, but it's way too much detail for a ship class article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't see how too much detail harms any article as long as it is concise and accurate. Any student of naval history, who reads this article will gain a valuable understanding of the engineering issues and challenges that the RN had to overcome.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I've asked for comments from the OMT members over on WT:OMT to see how they feel about the issue. That said, the article is not in good shape and will be failed by the end of this weekend until substantial progress has been made in addressing the points already raised.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this material is - while highly technical - basically OK. Any detailed history of the RN in World War II discusses the significant problems the navy experienced with its ships' propulsion and fuel consumption, especially during operations in the Pacific in 1945. I'd suggest moving this material to an endnote though as it's unlikely to be of interest to most readers. Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Failed because it few changes were made to address the points raised above in a timely manner, the submitters chose, instead, to add additional material.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]