Talk:Renown-class battlecruiser/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
I'm not really happy with the bulleted list for the improvements over the Revenge-class.
I'm actually rather fond of bulleted lists when used with restraint. I find them easier to read and assimilate than a collection of clauses in a sentence which would be the other method of conveying the information.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The original plan for these ships was to use lightweight machinery producing a total of 110,000 shaft horsepower (82,000 kW), but that would have added a considerable amount of time to complete the design of the machinery so the machinery from HMS Tiger was duplicated with the addition of three extra boilers to provide the required power needed for the additional speed." This is extremely long and uses the word "machinery" three times. Maybe "propulsion system" or something can be substituted.
Reworded.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Both Campbell and Rohwer are in the References section but have not been cited. Either move them to a further reading section or delete them.
Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
By what metric were Renown and Repulse the largest capital ships upon their completion? I believe the QEs displaced slightly more, though they were much shorter. Are we talking length? Regardless, it should be specified.
Sorry, that was meant to be fastest. Cited now in the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, what's the deal with the spotting tower in the bow? That doesn't make sense, because if you're in the hull you're lower than the turret gunners, which means you have less visibility. Was it supposed to be an elevated position? It also strikes me as odd that the Admiralty was fine with a pair of 19-knot BBs, but I guess by that point in the arms race, money wasn't as freely available.
The Brits did a test in 1913, IIRC, and found that the bow position was actually free of cordite and funnel smoke more often than not and wanted to add these positions to the new ships, but the war intervened. The Revenge class were actually 23-knotters, not the standard 21. I had to double-check that myself, as I'd thought that they had the standard 21 knots of the rest of the battlefleet. I guess I've been left with the indelible impression that they were impossibly slower than the QEs from my WW2 reading.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, that makes sense. Yeah, for some reason I was thinking they were back down to 21 knots (perhaps because our article on them says 21 knots - that should be fixed at some point). Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Just a few nitpicks here and there, excellent work all around! Parsecboy (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]