Talk:HMS Royal Sovereign (1891)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 10:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

GA criteria
: With the issues below addressed, the article complies with MOS policies on grammatical and structural layout. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (a)
 * (b)

: The article relies on several reputable publications, and does not appear to include anything resembling original research. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (a)
 * (b)
 * (c)

: The article seems to cover all relevant aspects of its topic. No information incorporated here seems trivial or otherwise unnecessary. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (a)
 * (b)

. The article's tone remains consistently unbiased. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC) . Since at least five years ago, the article has not been subjected to any edit-warring or similar disruptions. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC) : All images used in the article are public domain, thereby free of copyright-related risks. All of them are relevant to the article, and are appropriately captioned. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (a)
 * (b)

Comments
Where are we on this?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Technical characteristics", par. 2: In the sentence, "Unfortunately, some of her boiler tubes were observed to crack and leak under the pressures involved, so that the Navy decided not to push the boilers...", the wording might flow better if reworded as "Unfortunately, some of her boiler tubes were observed to crack and leak under the pressures involved; as a result, the Navy decided...".
 * Just stopping by because I mentioned to Sturm I might take a look at this one. Since I'm late, I don't want to interfere except on this point: first off, either way you express the sentence above, grammatically it sounds like the observation was unfortunate, not the cracking; secondly, "unfortunately" is a bit on the emotive and editorializing side anyway. I'd strongly suggest dropping "unfortunately" entirely; apart from that word, I'd be quite happy with the second form of the sentence, as suggested by Will. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Construction and career", par. 2 and 3: Wouldn't it be better to condense "...from 7 July to 11 July" to "from 7-11 July"; the same for "From 5 August to 9 August 1903"? It seems a bit verbally repetitive as is. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Both suggestions are good ideas, thank you both for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am so sorry; there have been a lot of things going on in my domestic life, and it's kept me away from Wikipedia all this time. Yes, I'd say things have much improved in the article, now, and I also want to lend thanks to Ian Rose for his input. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I must apologize again for what was probably a very irritating delay. With hopes that it will also appease the situation, I am pleased to announce that, checking against the criteria, I believe this article qualifies as GA. Congratulations! Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)