Talk:Battlecruiser/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 00:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Preliminary comments

 * Lead has too many paragraphs (its got 6), per WP:LEAD it shouldn't be any more than 4.
 * Placement of the commons category box is incorrect, per Template: Commons category it should be "... placed at the top of the ==External links== section, or at the top of the last section on the page, if no external links section exists..."
 * Ref here needs to use title case: Massie, Robert K. (1991). Dreadnought: Britain, Germany and the coming of the great war. New York: Random House. ISBN 0-394-52833-6.
 * Is an ISSN available for the Journal of Military History?
 * Is an ISSN available for Warship International?
 * The term "ISBN" is used twice here: Jentschura, Hansgeorg; Jung, Dieter & Mickel, Peter (1977). Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869–1945. Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute. ISBN ISBN 0-87021-893-X.
 * Really interesting to read a thematic article such as this (rather than about a class or a specific ship). Will get to a full review shortly. Anotherclown (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All done. It's always a challenge to find the appropriate level of detail for articles like this one. Be sure to say something if there's too much detail at some point or vice versa.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action req'd)
 * Linkrot: external links check out (no action req'd).
 * Alt text: Most of the images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (not a GA req'ment - suggestion only).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (no action req'd).
 * Duplicate links: no duplicate links (no action req'd).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Repetitive language here: "The first battlecruisers were developed in the United Kingdom in the first decade of the century, as a development..." (developed and development)
 * too many superlatives here I think: " becoming more and more heavily armoured..." perhaps consider: "...becoming more heavily armoured..."
 * "From the 1930s, only the Royal Navy continued to use 'battlecruiser'..." perhaps wikilink Royal Navy.
 * Repetitive: "There was also renewed interest in large "cruiser-killer" type warships, but few ever began construction, as construction..." (construction twice)
 * "However, British mainstream naval thinking..." → "However, mainstream British naval thinking..." (suggestion only)
 * "Fisher to Selborne, 20 October 1904". Who is Selborne?
 * Typo here? "delayed perhaps to allow their designs to learn from any problems with Dreadnought." Do you mean "designers"?
 * Inconsistent presentation of date range here: "The Royal Navy's early superiority in capital ships led to the rejection of a 1905–6..." (previously you use the format 1905–06).
 * "Von der Tann, begun in 1908 and completed in 1910...", Von der Tann should be wikilinked at first use.
 * Missing word here? "The Japanese also re-classified their powerful armoured cruisers of Tsukuba and Ibuki classes...", think this should be "The Japanese also re-classified their powerful armoured cruisers of the Tsukuba and Ibuki classes..."
 * Tense here: " The heavy armour and relatively slow speed of these ships makes them more similar...", consider instead: " The heavy armour and relatively slow speed of these ships made them more similar..."
 * Irregular capitalization here: "For most of the combatants, capital ship construction was very limited during the War." (specifically War should be lower case I think).
 * Repetitive language here: "They became Courageous and her sisters Glorious and Furious, and there was a bizarre imbalance between their main guns of 15 inches (or 18 inches (457 mm) in Furious) and their armour, which at three inches (7.6 cm) thickness was on the scale of a light cruiser. The design was generally regarded as a bizarre failure..." ("bizarre" twice)
 * Repetitive: "Specifically, they were designed with a shallow draught, which might be important in the shallow Baltic." ("shallow" twice).
 * "The experience of battlecruisers at the Battle of Jutland meant that the design...", Battle of Jutland should be wikilinked here (it is only linked in the lead previously).
 * Incorrect presentation of name and rank here: " save for the heroic actions of Major Harvey". Should be Major Francis Harvey per WP:SURNAME.
 * Missing word here I think: "The better-armoured German battlecruisers fared better, in part due to poor performance of British fuzes..." consider instead: "The better-armoured German battlecruisers fared better, in part due to the poor performance of British fuzes..."
 * Incorrect wikilink placement here: "The United States Navy also converted two battlecruiser hulls". United States Navy should be wikilinked at first use.
 * Probably needs a date (or a decade) for context: "The Kirov class lacks the armour that distinguishes battlecruisers from ordinary cruisers and they are classified as Tyazholyy Atomnyy Raketny Kreyser (Heavy Nuclear-powered Missile Cruiser) by Russia. Four members of the class were completed..."


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All major points cited using WP:RS.
 * No issues with OR.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
 * Level of coverage seems mostly appropriate to me.
 * The sinking of Repulse off Singapore on 10 December 1941 hints at the increasingly obsolescence of large capital ships due to development of airpower and I seem to recall reading something John Keegan wrote about this somewhere (among others). Should something be included about this here? (I'm not an expert on this topic so not even sure if I'm drawing the correct conclusion here).
 * That's actually a really good point and needs to be addressed.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues here.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues here.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
 * Caption here may need clarification or a reference: "HMS Hood, the largest battlecruiser ever built, in Australia on 17 March 1924." In the text of the article it is described as: "Hood was the largest ship in the Royal Navy when completed..." which seems sufficiently different to probably need a supporting reference.
 * Images all appear to be PD or licensed and seem appropriate for the article.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * This is an excellent article which covers the topic fairly well. Mostly some prose points above to deal with / discuss first. Pls let me know if I can clarify anything or if you disagree with any thing I have raised. Anotherclown (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've addressed all of these except for the point about Repulse's loss, which I'll need to find sources that address that issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, found and added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Those changes look good to me, so am passing now. Thanks for the prompt responses. Anotherclown (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)