Talk:HMS Valiant (1863)/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

 * I made some initial tweaks as I was reading the article, please check that you agree with them;
 * in the lead you refer to the ship as an armoured frigate, but then in the Design section you refer to it as an "ironclad" - this term is probably a bit esoteric, is there a way that you can just clarify that ironclad was another name for armoured frigate (I'm assuming that it is, for I really don't have much of a clue about maritime terminology);
 * Ironclads is the all-encompassing term for armored warships of this period. Armoured frigates were basically designed for the same role as wooden-style frigates, but this changed as the size and expense of these ships forced them to be used in the line of battle. In short, armoured frigate is one type of ironclad. Not sure how to integrate that into the article. Suggestions would be welcome.
 * Don't worry, its not a warstopper, but perhaps just add a footnote stating what you have said above? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a little bit unclear: "...where she remained until 1885 with one break to have new boilers installed, an experience unique among the British ironclads." (which experience was unique - having new boilers installed, or remaining at the one station for so long?
 * Should be a little clearer now.
 * Yes, looks good. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "On 20 July 1884 Valiant was rammed by the ironclad HMS Defence..." (one assumes this was an accident, but I think that it would make it clearer if you specifically said "accidentally rammed");
 * do we know where in Southern Ireland the ship was stationed?
 * Not specifically, no.
 * No dramas. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * should it be Southern Ireland, or southern Ireland? Southern Ireland implies that it is a proper noun, but at the time was the place officially called "Southern Ireland"?
 * I think that this relates more to the name of the First Class Reserve Districts into which Ireland was divided.
 * Ok, that makes sense. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * what was the "Russian war scare"? Is there an article that this could be linked to?
 * No, but I've added that it was during the Russo-Turkish War.
 * Works for me. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "tearing off her boats, davits and fittings on that side of the ship..." (what side? I don't think you have said which side it was);
 * I thought it pretty obvious that it was the side of the ship was was struck and that port or starboard needn't be specified.
 * I've tweaked the wording. Please check that you agree. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "The ship was converted to a kite balloon storeship in 1915 and her name was changed to HMS Valiant II" (firstly, I think you should insert a link here to the First World War and secondly, if you know it I think you should include where the ship served during the war. e.g. out of which port or base, etc.)
 * Link added, but I don't know where she served.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No dramas. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Progression

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

Technical review

 * a (Disambiguations): b Linkrot  c Alt text
 * no dabs found by the tools;
 * ext links all work;
 * image lacks alt text, although this is not a GA requirement and won't be held against the article.

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * All issues that I could find have been rectified (as per above).


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No issues here.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * All issues explained/clarified (as per above).


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * Seems fine.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues that I can see here.


 * 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':
 * No issues here.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Looks fine for GA. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)