Talk:Osmaniye-class ironclad/GA1
Appearance
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)
Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: - I wonder if you've lost track of this one? Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- @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)
- No worries, take your time. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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
- heavily rebuilt into more modern -> heavily modernized
- 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
- 25.4 mm (1.00 in); maintain consistency with others, please fix the template to display one decimal digit
- 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.
- Ah, would you look at that! Somebody beat me to it, and there's a fix we can do.
- 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)
- Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- 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:
- Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail: