Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Royal Oak (1914)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
(Self nom) I have been working on this article for some weeks now, and believe that it's now ready for evaluation here. To the best of my knowledge, no on-line source brings together a complete history of the ship like this. Your comments would of course be welcome. An earlier peer review by members of WikiProject Military history may be read here— BillC talk 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; all the issues raised in the peer review have been resolved. Kirill Lokshin 19:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nicely done. A well presented and well written article. Raymond Palmer 03:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A very nice read, and no flaws as far as I could see. 193.90.131.38 10:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Interesting and comprehensive - any problems post-GA attainment have been dealt with well. RHB Talk - Edits 16:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but a few comments on the intro:
- Don't like the intro sentence "famously sunk." That sounds as if I should already know what about the ship and it's claim to fame. I don't.
- When was the ship sunk? The intro doesn't discuss that, it only says the first days of WWII... but what were the first weeks of WWII? Doesn't that kind of depend on the nations involved?
- Kriegsmarine = ???Balloonman 00:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments; I have made some changes to the lead section in light of them. — BillC talk 01:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a very well written and visually attractive article. --Nick Dowling 01:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well researched, I enjoyed reading the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppport Nice article. —dima/s-ko/ 03:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, beautiful work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but could you standardize the page refs in the notes section? I'd say go with either pp or p, but not both. JHMM13 06:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks – my understanding was that pp was used for page ranges and p for single pages, which is what I have used. I'll look into this later today and correct it if I was wrong. — BillC talk 08:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops. I'm very sorry. Here I am at the end of an illustrious college career and I didn't know that. Forget I said anything. :-) JHMM13 00:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks – my understanding was that pp was used for page ranges and p for single pages, which is what I have used. I'll look into this later today and correct it if I was wrong. — BillC talk 08:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.