Talk:Greek battleship Salamis/GA1

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

Reviewer: Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Review: That's my review! Looking forward to engaging your responses to the points I brought up, especially the bit about hyphens, as I am curious about the standard followed. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you want the English period instead of the French comma in this length: "173,7 m"
 * Typo on my part, fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For adjectival dimensions, a hyphen is appropriate: instead of "eight 14 in (36 cm) guns", perhaps "eight 14-inch (36 cm) guns". Same with "twelve 6 in (15 cm) /50 guns" which ought to be "twelve 6-inch (15 cm) /50 guns". And:
 * "1,400 lb (640 kg) armor-piercing or high explosive shells"
 * "105 lb (47.7 kg) projectiles"
 * "twelve 75 mm (3.0 in) quick-firing guns"
 * "five 50 cm (20 in) submerged torpedo tubes"
 * "six 14 inch guns in twin turrets, eight 6 inch, eight 3 in (7.6 cm), and four 37 mm (1.5 in) guns, and two 45 cm (18 in) torpedo tubes"
 * "The 14 inch guns were instead sold"
 * Per MOS:HYPHEN, hyphens aren't used with abbreviated units (don't ask me why). I've been told not to do so in FACs (like here for example). Parsecboy (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is just me but I'd like to see 'knots' spelled out at first appearance: "top speed of 23 knots (43 km/h; 26 mph)" instead of "top speed of 23 kn (43 km/h; 26 mph)". You spell it out in the article body, but not the lead.
 * Done. Parsecboy (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Along the same lines, the words 'feet' and 'inches' are spelled out at first appearance in the article body but not where they are introduced in the lead. Is that standard for battleship articles?
 * Probably something peculiar to me :) I fixed these as well. Parsecboy (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot tell whether the ship was to have three turbines, or some multiple of three turbines arranged on three shafts.
 * Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Adjectival "four twin gun turrets" should be hyphenated: "four twin-gun turrets" or "four twin-gun turrets".
 * Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why did Greece get spanked twice in 1932? They had to pay AG Vulcan 30 big ones, but they did not receive the goods they paid for. Any explanation? They were supposedly Allies in WWI, and AG Vulcan was the enemy. Who were the arbitrators... Germans?
 * Conway's doesn't say, but presumably because the unfinished ship was judged to be worth more than the £450,000 the Greeks had already paid (which was about a quarter of the contract cost). Parsecboy (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Greek government refused to pay for the unfinished ship"... which ship? Vasilefs Konstantinos or Salamis? If the former, did Greece ever pay £30,000 to AG Vulcan?
 * The former. Conway's doesn't say specifically whether Greece actually paid the sum, but I'd guess that they did. Parsecboy (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Another question: Why is the tonnage put in metric units first in the infobox and article, when metric units are listed second elsewhere? Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what the source says; it's also the most precise round figure for the specified displacement in the contract. If you convert it to long tons (which weren't standardized as the displacement unit yet) you actually get 19195.3125, and for short tons (which no one uses for ship displacement) you'd get 21498.75. Parsecboy (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Good to go! Congratulations. Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)