Talk:HMS Kent (1901)/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 00:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I will review this article for GAN shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, this article looks to be in pretty good shape. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * On 15 March 1905 she...: suggest adding an introductory comma after the date
 * same as above for In early 1919... and In 1964...
 * Generally, I avoid commas after introductory phrases unless they're six words or more.
 * No worries, although, it is inconsistent with On 13 May, Kent accompanied...
 * light cruiser Karlsruhe in the Cape Verde — Canary Islands: endash instead of emdash?
 * Not sure either, but done.
 * and fired her six-inch guns for the first time after her refit: test fired?
 * I think of a test firing as simply firing them to see if everything works, but clarified.
 * the two ships exchanged salvos and scoring the occasional hit --> "the two ships exchanged salvos, scoring the occasional hit" or "the two ships exchanged salvos and scored the occasional hit"
 * in the Battle of the Falklands section, I suggest splitting the second paragraph as it is quite long
 * "battlecruisers" is overlinked in the Battle of Falklands section
 * ship set sail for Singapore on 24 August: do we know why? Had it been decided at that point that the ship would be deployed against the Bolsheviks?
 * Do we know of any specific actions, or even in general what the ship was engaged in between January and June 1919? Did it shell any targets for instance?
 * I'm so glad that you asked about that because I'd totally forgotten a recent journal article covering this.
 * traveled --> "travelled"
 * the citation to the Military History Journal might be better using the cite journal template, as currently the volume and issue numbers aren't being displayed in read mode
 * in the Bibliography, is there an ISSN or OCLC number for Warship International?
 * in the Bibliography, "Falkland Islands- Early Days": add a spaced endash?
 * in the Bibliography, "Transcript: HMS KENT - October...": decaps per MOS:ALLCAPS and an endash
 * External links: per MOS:LAYOUTEL we shouldn't have a section like this solely for the box like template. Suggest either adding one or two links, or removing the header and moving the box template to the top of the last section
 * Ext links all work (no action required)
 * there are no dab links (no action required)
 * "File:Kent-Dixon.jpg": probably needs a US licence tag, and the source link doesn't seem to show this image?
 * Thanks for the thorough review. I think that I've addressed everything that you brought up; see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, the changes look good to me. I made a couple of minor tweaks. Good luck with taking this further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Well written: ✅
 * a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research: ✅


 * a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be  challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
 * c. it contains no original research; and
 * d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: ✅


 * a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. ✅

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute ✅

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: ✅


 * a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.