Talk:HMS Hood (1891)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 14:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll take on this review later tonight - I haven't done a ship in quite some time. Per the toolbox at the side, there is one disambiguation link in the article, and resolving it may help my review. Canadian  Paul  14:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Had to write a stub, but fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 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) Per WP:LEAD, the lead should not introduce any information that is not present in the body of the article. Currently the information in the first sentence isn't present in the body and would be useful in contextualizing the "Design" section.
 * Thought that I'd deleted that bit.


 * 1) Under "Design", second paragraph, "The lower freeboard was required by her use of armoured gun turrets—a heavy type of rotating gun mounting of the mid-and-late 19th century very different from what would later be known as gun "turrets" on ships—rather than having the guns exposed on top of barbettes — the ancestor of the modern "turret", which is essentially a barbette enclosed by a rotating gunhouse, a very different concept from the older style of turret Hood mounted." This sentence is far too long to follow and needs to be cut up into at least two for the flow to work.
 * Entirely rewritten. See how it works for you.


 * 1) Under "Armament", third paragraph, "In 1897 one of these 3-pounders..." Maybe I'm being oblivious, but what 3-pounders? I don't think that they've been mentioned up to this point in the text.
 * My mistake.


 * 1) Under "Construction and career", third paragraph, is there any information on when the repairs were completed? Seems like a missing piece of information here, given how detailed the timeline for everything else is.
 * No, only the total time for the repairs and refit together is in my sources.


 * 1) Same section, fourth paragraph, "The ship was placed into reserve at Devonport on 3 January 1905, where she remained until February 1907." I presume that you're referring to Hood here, but technically its ambiguous in the text whether "the ship" is Hood or Russell.
 * Fixed.


 * 1) Same section, fifth paragraph, is there a reason that "Sale List" is capitalized? If show, what it is should briefly be explained, even if it's a bit obvious.
 * Fixed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, just a few minor clarifications needed. To allow for these issues to be addressed I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian  Paul  18:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll take another look at it right now! Canadian   Paul  18:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There is still information in the lead that is not present in the body of the article: it implies (and even less so than the last change) rather than outright stating that Hood was "a modified Royal Sovereign-class battleship pre-dreadnought battleship", nor does it mention that it was "the last of the eight built". Also, it doesn't look like anything has been done to address my question/issue with the sale list. Finally, is there a citation for "'Ood 'Ave Thought It?'" being the ship's nickname? Seems like something that could be reasonably challenged. Otherwise, it should be good to go for GA status once this has been taken care of! Canadian   Paul  18:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted the nickname as I can't source it. Clarified the bit about being last in her class and had missed that sale list was mentioned twice. See if it works for you now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like it should be good to go. I'm going to give it one more quick re-read right now. Canadian   Paul  16:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The article now appears to meet the Good Article criteria and therefore I will be passing it. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian   Paul  16:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)