Jump to content

Talk:Osmaniye-class ironclad/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 03:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: - I wonder if you've lost track of this one? Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: Sorry for the delay, got a bit busy. Please accept my apologies. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, take your time. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead and infobox;
    • heavily rebuilt into more modern -> heavily modernized
      • I don't think "modernized" really captures what was done to the ships - that usually means less radical changes than what happened here.
    • considered rebuilding the ships a second time -> considered rebuilding the ships for the second time
      • Done
    • but abandoned the idea due to their "economic" or "financial" state
      • It was the condition of the ships, not the Ottoman finances that led to the abandonment of the project - added "deteriorated" instead
    • Infobox; Please check the In commission years, I think it is to be 1885
      • Good catch, but it should be 1865
  • Section 1; all good
  • Section 1.1; all good; Consistency maintained, all the parameters—Displacement, Length, Beam, Draft, Power, Propulsion, Speed, Armament and armor—seem fine. Conversion templates and links in right place
  • Section 1.2;
    • 25.4 mm (1.00 in); maintain consistency with others, please fix the template to display one decimal digit
      • Fixed
  • Section 3;
    • were heavily rebuilt in the early 1890s, being converted into more modern barbette ships; Please follow the suggestion from lead
  • This dup link script pretty many dup links, but I think there is some error in that. Please verify.
    • Yeah, I've noticed lately the duplink checker isn't considering the lead and body separate sections anymore. Maybe I'll ask Ucucha about that.
  • 0% confidence, violation unlikely.
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]