Talk:HMS Venerable (1899)/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 03:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I will take a look at this one. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

General comments: G'day, Parsecboy, nice work. I have a few comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * no dup or dab links (no action required)
 * ext links all work: (no action required)
 * referencing looks good to me and all sources appear to be RS (no action required)
 * the images lack alt text, and although it isn't a requirement it does help improve the experience for some of our users:
 * the source link for "File:HMS Venerable.jpg" doesn't seem to link directly to the image
 * You apparently have to make it search for "SP 596" in quotes, but I don't know how to make the template do that.
 * Ack, yes that worked for me. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "File:Formidable class battleship diagrams Brasseys 1906.jpg": needs a US tag also, and doesn't mention the author's date of death to verify that 70 years have passed. Suggest just switching to PD-US-1923?
 * Fixed now
 * in the lead, Her main battery --> suggest using the ship name here, given the last sentence was generically referring to the London class collectively
 * Good idea
 * there are some rounding differences, e.g. compare "beam of 75 ft (23 m)" in the body v. "75 ft (22.9 m)" in the infobox
 * Fixed
 * same as above for:
 * "9 inches (229 mm)" (body) v. "9 in (23 cm)" (infobox)
 * "9 to 12 in (229 to 305 mm)" v. "9–12 in (23–30 cm)"
 * "12 in (305 mm) barbettes" v. "12 in (30 cm)"
 * "turrets sides were 8 to 10 in (203 to 254 mm) thick" v. "10 in (25 cm)"
 * "14 in (356 mm)" v. "14 in (36 cm)"
 * All fixed
 * this seems slightly inconsistent: She displaced 14,500 tonnes (14,300 long tons) normally and up to 15,700 tonnes (15,500 long tons) fully loaded v. "14,500 long tons (14,700 t) (normal)" and "15,700 long tons (16,000 t) (full load)" --> tonnes v. long tons
 * Corrected
 * "draft" v. "draught"
 * This is why I don't write more articles on British ships ;)
 * inconsistent: "15,000 indicated horsepower (11,000 kW)" in the body v. "15,000 ihp (11,190 kW)" in the infobox
 * Fixed
 * inconsistent: "ten 12-pounder guns" (body) v. "16 x QF 12-pounder guns" (infobox)
 * Fixed
 * guard against a possible German invasion of the United Kingdom: perhaps link to Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United Kingdom
 * Good idea
 * replace battleship HMS Queen Elizabeth --> "replace the battleship HMS Queen Elizabeth"?
 * Fixed
 * serving there until December 1916: did any actions take place, or were any patrols undertaken etc during this time?
 * Not that are recorded in Burt or Corbett - the heavy units of the various fleets in the Adriatic essentially stayed in port for the duration of the war, as neither side wanted to risk them
 * Ok, no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * She was towed to Germany for scrapping: perhaps mention breaking up at this point also, as it is specifically mentioned in the lead
 * Changed "scrapping" to broken up - also helps reduce a bit of redundancy.
 * in the References, the hyphenation of ISBNs is different (compare Burt with Gardiner)
 * Done
 * in the Further reading section, shouldn't the title of the Dittmar work be in italics?
 * Ah, yes - I had just moved the unused books there without looking at them too closely.
 * in the Further reading section, the Dittmar and Gibbons sources are formatted differently to Colledge (compare the location of the years of publication)
 * Fixed
 * the Battleships portal link isn't an External link as such, so it should probably be in one of the other sections above that
 * Good point. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Criteria
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):


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


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Article appears stable and isn't subject to a current edit war. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:
 * Issues rectified. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Looks good, Nate. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)