Talk:HMS Raven II/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 07:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
 * Disambiguations: two dab links :
 * Tarsus
 * Collier
 * Linkrot: External links check out (no action required).
 * Alt text: Image lacks alt text (suggestion only).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks using Google reveal no issues (no action required).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "HMS Raven II was a seaplane carrier of the Royal Navy used during World War I...", consider a minor reword as "HMS Raven II was a seaplane carrier of the Royal Navy during World War I." (suggestion only)
 * I prefer the current wording because it emphasizes that she was only briefly in British service.
 * This is a little unclear: "...she was seized whilst in Port Said, Egypt and was requisitioned for service under...", seized by who?
 * Missing word here: "...and its primary duty was watch Turkish positions..."
 * Not sure about this: "...her aircraft dropped 91 20 pounds (9.1 kg)...", should this be "...her aircraft dropped ninety-one 20-pound (9.1 kg)..." per WP:ORDINAL.
 * Some inconsistency in language as use seem to use Ottoman and Turkish interchangably. Perhaps chose one and use it consistently?
 * "...one 65 pounds (29 kg) bomb and eight 16 pounds (7.3 kg)...", should be "...one 65-pound (29 kg) bomb and eight 16-pound (7.3 kg)..." as they are adjectives.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All major points cited using WP:RS.
 * Consistent citation style used throughout.
 * No issues with OR.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * All major aspects appear to be covered without being too detailed.
 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues here.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * All recent edits look constructive.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
 * Image has a fair use rationale and appears to be appropriate for the article. Do you know what date the photo was taken? This should be added to the discription if available.
 * Be nice to know when, because she sure looks dirty. Makes me wonder if it's a late picture and she's a collier.
 * No problem. Anotherclown (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Only a couple of minor points above to addresss. Happy to discuss any points you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All done. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Too easy. Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)