Talk:HMS Thames (1885)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 02:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Will come back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Section 1; para 1; sentence 1; "with more armour" may revised as "with better armour"
 * The armour was thicker and there was more of it, so I think that "more" is OK.
 * Section 1; para 1; consistency error; In the para maximum speed is mentioned as "18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)" and in the infobox it is "17 kn (31 km/h; 20 mph)". The same error with the ranges also, "8,750 nautical miles (16,200 km; 10,070 mi) at a speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)" in prose, and "3,500 nmi (6,500 km; 4,000 mi) at 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)" in infobox.
 * Good catch.
 * Section 2; Who is "Hon. Mrs. Algernon Littleton"? Please mention something about her capacity (if available).
 * My source comments that even he hasn't been able to figure out who she was. My best guess is the wife of some aristocratic byblow.
 * Section 2.1; para 1; Please mention the namesake of the ship. I think it is for Louis Botha, a South African general and later Prime Minister of SA, and also add the same to infobox.
 * Good idea for the main body, already in the infobox.


 * Section 2.1; para 1; "where they arrived two days later", "they"? It is only one ship right? Please revise this.
 * Section 2.1; para 2; sentence 1; "He donated it to a trust", who is "he"? Because just in prior sentence, Minister of Defence was mentioned. It creates some confusion whether he donated or the owner.
 * Indeed.
 * Section 2.1; para 2; "The Board of Control offered the ship to the RN", which "Board of Control"? Please mention.
 * Nice work. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 10:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * All done. Thanks for your thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2016 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)