Talk:St Vincent-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 03:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the beam in the infobox doesn't match the text
the lower range of the crew in the infobox doesn't match the text
breech loading is mentioned and linked twice
The belt seems to have been 2-10 in thick, but the infobox says 8-10?
- The main portion of the belt armour, that stretched from barbette to barbette, was 8-10 inches thick. The extensions fore and aft to the ships' ends thinned to 2 inches.
under Modifications, it might be worth adding what flew off Collingwood's platforms
- The problem is finding a source that specifically mentions Collingwood, or one that covers all of the battleships. Lemme see what I can dig up.
was there a reason that Collingwood was commissioned out of sequence?
- No idea, the royal dockyards were usually a bit quicker to build than private ones.
"the Jade" is a bit esoteric for the unschooled reader, perhaps "the Jade Bight"?
perhaps link Cryptography for decryption?
- I think that Signals intelligence is probably a bit better.
the sentence containing received conflicting intelligence; after reaching the location doesn't gel. Reword?
- 'Twas missing an important clause. See how it reads now.
There is an incomplete sentence sighted by an airship, which was in fact the .
- Indeed.
suggest 'P' and 'Q' turrets lay some 40 metres away, presumably blown there by the magazine explosions on something similar, as they weren't blown there in 1984.
there is no date of publication for File:HMS Vanguard (1909).png to rely on the PD-1923 tag
- It's a cropped version of [:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_Vanguard_(1909).gif] this which shows that it was a commercial photo taken before 1915 and likely published around then.
the USNHC link at File:HMS Vanguard aft guns USNHC NH 52619.jpg is broken, and needs a date of publication for a PD-1923 tag
- Updated
It is extremely unlikely that File:First battle squadron in the North Sea (April 1915).jpg was taken by a USN sailor

This article is in fine shape, mostly this is minor stuff, but some of the image licensing needs work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- The main page of the NHHC photography collection states: "Most of the photos found in our collection are in the public domain and may be downloaded and used without permissions or special requirements (those which are not will be noted in the copyright section of the image description)." It's impossible at this distance to know if the photos were purchased or made by naval attaches, or given by organizations like the RN or unknown individuals. We may need our own special license template to reflect this rather than relying on the standard US Navy tag. Thanks for reviewing this so thoroughly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the NHHC ones should be PD-because, with a link to that page? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Something like that, I think. I've opened a discussion on the Village pump at Commons: [1] if you want to make the first comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]