Talk:HMS Hogue (1900)/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 21:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I will review this article for GA - will try to post some comments shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is in good shape. I have a few comments/suggestions for discussion, but otherwise I'm happy it meets the GA criteria: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments/suggestions:
 * in the lead, "Only 48 of her crew were killed in the attack". Not sure about the word "only" here. Casualties are subjective, but 48 killed is pretty significant these days, although maybe it wasn't in the context of World War I. As such, I'd suggest just removing the word "only" here.
 * Rephrased to emphasize Hogue's small number compared to her sisters which were almost sunk with all hands.
 * in Design and description: "a beam of 69 feet 9 inches" --> inconsistent with the infobox "Beam 69 ft 6 in"
 * as above, "On her sea trials, Hogue reached 22.06 knots" --> in the infobox "Speed: 21 knots"
 * Rephrased to clarify which was design speed and what she actually managed to reach on trials.
 * as above, "A dozen quick-firing (QF) 12-pounder 18 cwt guns" --> in the infobox, "12 x single QF 12-pdr 12 cwt guns"
 * in the Construction and service section, I wonder if something could be said about what the ship did when she was on China Station. It wouldn't need much, just a short sentence or the addition of a clause to the sentence about the refit. For example, "Later that year she was transferred to China Station after a refit. During the deployment the ship was tasked with protecting British shipping from..."? Of course, if nothing is written about this, just let me know.
 * I poked through some period newspapers and couldn't find any thing of note during her time there. I expect that she did the usual things like intimidate the Chinese, hunt pirates, etc.
 * as above, "She was reduced to reserve at Devonport in 1908 and then assigned to the reserve Third Fleet at the Nore the next year". I wonder if we could say why - I assume that maybe the ship was becoming out of date? If nothing is written about this, then of course there is no need to say.
 * Unfortunately nothing I have says exactly why they were chosen, although there was certainly a sense that they were getting obsolete for use with the fleet. 1908–09 was then the RN began putting many more of its ships into reserve as the building program began ramping up. Sometimes even brand new ships spent time in reserve although I have no idea why, possibly waiting for crews, but that's no more than speculation.
 * in the Fate section: "The three sisters in line abreast, about 2,000 yards (1,800 m) apart, at a speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)." This sentence appears to be missing a word, perhaps add "were" between "sisters" and "in line abreast";
 * in the Fate section: "signaled" --> "signalled" if using UK English?
 * the duplicate link checker tool identifies "destroyer" as being overlinked;
 * in the Bibliography: "Greenwich" --> "Greenwich, UK"?
 * in the Bibliography: year of publishing for Corbett?
 * the images look appropriately licenced and captioned, although if possible it might be a good addition to add years to the captions about Hogue at anchor and the launching of Hogue
 * "Victories of U-9 on a Postcard" --> should "Postcard" be in lower case?


 * Other comments by way of review against the GA criteria: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * the article is sufficiently well written;
 * the article seems factually accurate, well referenced, utilises reliable sources and I didn't detected any OR;
 * the article gives a good overview of the topic, covering the main aspects while remaining focused;
 * the article doesn't seem to be subject to any edit wars
 * the article uses neutral language
 * as above, the images seem appropriately licenced
 * technical stuff: there are no dab links, and the external links all work. The Earwig tool reports no copyvios:

Anyway, that's it from me. A pretty easy article to review and just a couple of minor things to cover off on/discuss before promotion. Please feel free to query anything you don't agree with. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough review; I've dealt with all of your comments to the limits of my sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. Your changes look good. I am happy that the article meets the GA criteria. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)