Talk:HMS Agamemnon (1906)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 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:

Comments

 * 1) In the lede Just as her namesake, Agamemnon, was murdered upon his return from Troy is off focus and un-verifiable
 * 2) In the construction section 'its states displaced 17,820 long tons (18,106 t) but its down as 17,683 long tons in the inf box
 * Fixed


 * 1) Same section has draft of 26 feet 0 inches (7.9 m) and the inf box 26 feet 9 inches (8.2 m)
 * Fixed


 * 1) Same section has 24 QF 12-pounder 18 cwt gun and the inf box 24 × 1 - 3-inch (76 mm) guns
 * 12-pdr added to the infobox


 * 1) This image File:HMS Agamemnon (1908) profile drawing.png has been added to commons but it appears to have a copy right tag in the top left corner Andrew Arthur, 2001
 * What IdreamofJeanie said.


 * 1) Alougth covered in the inf box there is nothing in the design section about here armour
 * Added.


 * 1) As I understand it with the launch of Dreadnought all pre-dreadnought ships were obsolete so some mention could be made of this.
 * That was rather exaggerated, and best left to the class article, IMO.


 * 1) I have no real preference but a British article some may expect to see the British term First World War not World War I.
 * British books seem to use both terms equally, in my experience.


 * 1) The World War I sub section is very small and it may be better incorporated into teh preceding or following sections
 * Relabeled.


 * 1) in the same section 'In February 1915, Agamemnon was ordered to the Dardanelles to participate in the Dardanelles Campaign. She departed Portland on 9 February 1915' change to 'She departed Portland on 9 February 1915, to participate in the Dardanelles Campaign.' gets rid of the repitition of Dardanelles
 * 2) To remain consistant 240-millimetre (9.4-inch) should be turned around with the imperial measurement first.
 * Sizes are given the owning nation's usage. Turks were metric, because they bought a lot of German guns.


 * 1) 'Agamemnon supported the amphibious landings of 4 March 1915' - what landings were these and can they be linked
 * No, these are small landing, essentially raids, and the troops are pulled off the beaches afterwards.


 * 1) 'wrecked a wardroom and a gunroom' - was there more than pne wardroom ?
 * No, fixed.


 * 1) 'The ship also participated in the main attack on the Narrows forts' - do we know what narrow forts these were and can they be linked
 * Provided a map.


 * 1) 'battery took her under fire' - opened fire on her
 * Fixed


 * 1) 'Agamemnon supported the main landings' - can the main landings be linked
 * Done


 * 1) 'she provided fire support during a Turkish counterattack against Allied troops ' - can this be reworded sounds like she supported the Turkish attack
 * Done


 * 1) 'Agamemnon underwent a refit at Malta in May–June 1915, then returned to the Dardanelles. ' - Agamemmon was withdrawn to Malta in May to undergo a refit and returned to the Dardanelles in June
 * Done


 * 1) 'With the end of the Dardanelles Campaign in January 1916, British naval forces in the area were reorganized, and Agamemnon became part of the Eastern Mediterranean Squadron, which was redesignated the Aegean Squadron in August 1917.' - needs a cite
 * Covered by #5 given later in the same paragraph


 * 1) 'Under both names, the squadron was dispersed throughout the area to protect Allied-held islands, support the British Army at Salonika, and guard against any attempted breakout from the Dardanelles by the German Goeben and Breslau' - also needs a cite
 * See above.


 * 1) 'damaged the German Zeppelin LZ85 on 5 May 1917 at Salonika with a 12-pounder' - sounds like they threw the gun at it - damaged by a shell from a 12-pounder
 * Agreed


 * 1) 'Of all the responsibilities given the two ships, the most important was to guard the Eastern Mediterranean against a breakout by Goeben.' - also needs a cite for most important
 * Burt, p. 298, just like the one at the end of the paragraph.


 * 1) 'Agamemnon underwent a refit at Malta in 1918' - do we know when ?
 * No.


 * 1) In the Post War section the first sentence is a bit left on its own and could be incorporated into the following section
 * Got rid of the other section headings.


 * 1) Same section has 6-inch, 5.5-inch (140 mm), and 4.7-inch (120 mm) can the convert template be used for the 6 inch as well to remain consistant
 * 6-inch was converted earlier in the article.


 * 1) The Decommissioning and disposal section with two sentences is also very small and could be incorporated in the section avove
 * Done


 * 1) What makes http://theclydebankstory.com/image.php?inum=TCSM00076 reliable and it does not point to the correct page ? also needs the cite web template used.
 * 2) Same with http://www.lolly.freeserve.co.uk/lz85.htm
 * Deleted


 * 1) Gibbons, Tony (1983) and Gardiner, Robert, ed (1979) both listed in the references but dont seem to have been used.
 * Deleted


 * 1) Battle of Imbros directs to a disamb page
 * Fixed


 * 1) External links http://www.clydesite.co.uk/clydebuilt/warships/vessel.asp?id=3078 is dead
 * Deleted

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * comment 1:text deleted.
 * Comment 2+3: cite added for 17683 + 26 foot 9
 * comment 4:"The QF 12 pounder 18 cwt gun was a 3 inch high-velocity naval gun" (from that article) no contradiction here.
 * They should read the same in teh article to avoid confusion
 * comment 5: mmm Author's name, not (specifically) a copyright notice, but same drawing appears (with same author) here:http://www.cityofart.net/bship/nelson.htm. do we know if emoscopes is/is not Andrew Arthur?
 * We dont but the source states its self made Self made, using Corel PhotoPaint 6 Software which looks doubtful why would the copy right be included ?
 * NB There are at least two other similar drawings by AA unloaded by emoscopes, so i think we should AGF.
 * Comments 8+9: headings tweaked to cover these points IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Passed GA --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)