Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Benbow (1913)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

HMS Benbow (1913)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Figured I ought to join the British battleship fun Sturmvogel has been having lately. This ship was one of the Royal Navy's most powerful ships at the outbreak of World War I, though like the rest of the Grand Fleet, she didn't see much action, even at Jutland. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Iazyges

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No DAB or dead links.
I see no outstanding problems with the prose. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi

"Halpern, p. 251" Which Halpern book? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch, fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Llammakey

I suggest linking pre-dreadnought and mines.
- Done
Battlecruiser and light cruiser should be linked earlier at first mention.
- Both done
fleet should be capitalized in Mediterranean fleet at first mention.
- Fixed
Suggest rewording of final sentence, such as "sold for scrap in January 1931 and broken up in March 1931..." to avoid repetition of the word scrap.
- Good idea, and added a link to ship breaking for good measure.
In the section "Later operations", the turret names need their "".Llammakey (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. Thanks Llammakey. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support after changes. Llammakey (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Vami_IV

I have only one suggestion to make and that is to implement Template:sfn for citation of books and/or journals. Reason being is that it creates a link from the citation to the work cited, for the convenience of the reader. –Vami_IV✠ 14:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't generally use the sfn template unless it's already in the article, or I'm going to be copying citations from an article that uses it - if someone else wants to make the change, I'm not opposed to it, but I don't think it's really worth the effort to switch 60 or so footnotes manually. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Anotherclown

All tool checks ok, Earwig reveals no issues with close paraphrase or copyviolations [1] (no action req'd).
Images all appear to be PD and have the req'd information / tags. Captions look ok to me.
"...in support of Beatty's Battlecruiser Fleet..." Who is Beatty?
- Good catch
"...Jellicoe had intended to use the Harwich Force to sweep..." Who is Jellicoe?
- Fixed
"...credit for the hits cannot be given..." perhaps "could not" instead of "cannot" (tense).
- Good idea
I made some edits to *hopefully) correct I few things, pls check and amend where necessary [2].
- All of your changes look good to me.
"Marder, p. 424" appears as a shortcite but there is no corresponding work in the references that I could see.
- Ha - I went to copy the citation over from HMS Marlborough and that article had the same problem!
Otherwise this looks very good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.