Talk:HMS Victorious (1895)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 18:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll review another ship for GA, why not? Hopefully I'll get to this one later tonight. There's no obvious reasons for quickfail, disambiguation links, or external link problems, so I should be good to go! Canadian  Paul  18:50, 24 June 2012 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Overall there are no problems with references, scope, neutrality, stability, or images. My main concern is with the prose; it seems a bit choppy and has more of a "fact after fact" feel than a narrative, prose flow, which makes it hard for me to review it for more specific issues. It's probably just fine for GA standards, especially considering your obvious experience with Good and Featured Articles, but I am going to go ahead and request a second opinion on this article just to be certain. Since this is a short article and we are in the middle of a GA review drive, hopefully someone will be along quickly to look it over and help me make a decision one way or another. Canadian  Paul  03:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Just as Paul said, i've seen that it reads like fact after fact instead of a flowed narrative. As an example: — Hahc 21  03:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Prose comments
 * "Victorious was laid down at the Chatham Dockyard on 28 May 1894. She was launched on 19 October 1895, after which fitting-out work commenced. She was commissioned into the Royal Navy about a year later, on 4 November 1896." → "Victorious was laid down at the Chatham Dockyard on 28 May 1894, launched on 19 october 1895—after which fitting-out work commenced—and commisioned into the Royal Navy about a yer later, on 4 November 1896."
 * "Her propulsion system consisted of two 3-cylinder triple expansion engines powered by eight coal-fired cylindrical boilers. By 1907–1908 she was re-boilered with oil-fired models." → "Her propulsion system consisted of two 3-cylinder triple-expansion engines powered by eight coal-fired cylindrical boilers and—by 1907-08—with oil-fired models, after being re-boilered that year."


 * Thanks for the second opinion... sometimes it just helps to have another pair of eyes review something... and double thank you for going the extra mile and providing some specific examples with ways in which they can be improved. Essentially, if the prose flows a bit more, like in the suggested improvements provided by Hahc21, I believe that this will be ready for GA status. Therefore I will place it on hold for the time being to see what can be done to improve to the article. Since my complaint is a bit vague and I haven't been able to explain myself as clearly as I'd like to on the issue, I'll be happy to work with the nominator in improving the article in whatever way best helps them. Canadian   Paul  14:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I partially used the first suggestion, as though I generally like long sentences, it's a bit too long for my blood as suggested. I don't see what's really improved with the second one, apart from merging the sentences. The technical section is going to be a little dry by its very nature, but short, punchy sentences aren't a bad thing. I made a few tweaks to the rest of the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll take another look right now. I'm not too worried about the technical section, because I agree that there's not much that can be done. Therefore I'm going to focus more on "Operational history". Canadian   Paul  21:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, so having reviewed the the "Operational history" section in a little more detail, I can tell that there's still a problem, which is that most of the section reads as if a list of of facts has been written one after the next rather thanplaced in a list format ie. "This happened, this happened, this happened". There are few ideas connecting each of the sentences, so instead of telling a (encyclopedic) story, ie. "This happened and consequently, X occurred. It was followed up much later by Y" it reads like a string of bullet points. This obviously can't happen with every single sentence, sometimes something totally unrelated makes the next logical/chronological sense, but there has to be some reason that the prose goes in the direction that it does, some overarching idea that defines the text that is defined by the narration and are compared and contrasted with surrounding ones.
 * Above you asked what the difference was in the second example and it's this: it connects the facts in the two sentences (There were coal boilers. Then it got oil boilers) and turns it into an narrative with subtext (The ship started with coal boilers, but this changed later). Short, punchy sentences can be good – sometimes – but without any connecting ideas, they are just a list of facts.


 * A good example of where this is done well is the first two sentences of "World War I": "In July 1914 the Royal Navy began a precautionary mobilization as war began to seem imminent. As part of this, Victorious and her sister ships Hannibal, Mars, and Magnificent, formed the 9th Battle Squadron on 27 July 1914, stationed at the Humber to defend the British coast" That's much better than "In July 1914 the Royal Navy began a precautionary mobilization as war began to seem imminent. Victorious and her sister ships Hannibal, Mars, and Magnificent formed the 9th Battle Squadron on 27 July 1914. They were stationed at the Humber to defend the British coast." It only takes a few small connectors to turn facts into flow. It's a difficult concept to explain, but if it's still not clear, I can try and find someone else to clarify. Canadian   Paul  22:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, but the service section covers a period of almost 30 years, and most of the bits and pieces aren't neatly connected like that. There's only so much you can do with a two or three year gap in time between unrelated items. I don't know what you want me to do with something like She was reduced to a nucleus crew, in commission in reserve, in March 1909. Victorious was transferred to the Devonport Division, Home Fleet, in January 1911, and to the 3rd Fleet in May 1912. where the events are completely unrelated. If you're asking for more context, I can only give you what the sources give me. Parsecboy (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding your example above (and referring to the previous sentence), how about "Less than a year after these improvements she was reduced to a nucleus crew, in commission in reserve, in March 1909. Nearly two years later she was transferred to the Devonport Division, Home Fleet, in January 1911, and to the 3rd Fleet in March of the following year." It may seem like extra verbiage, but at this point it's necessary to give the paragraphs flow. It's not perfect, but at least it connects the ideas between the two sentences. This is the minimum necessary in order to pass the "Well-written" criteria for Good Articles. Canadian   Paul  14:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, repeatedly pointing out the time interval can be damaging to the prose quality: "Two years later X happened. Y occurred three years after." The reader can tell two or three years elapsed between a given set of dates; having it constantly pointed out becomes very repetitive and tiresome. I've written numerous FAs with basically this same style of writing; see for instance SMS König, which is very date/event heavy (apart from the battle narratives of course). Parsecboy (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well even skimming that article I can tell that the prose in SMS König is far superior to this one, so it's not really a fair comparison. I've already listed this for second opinion, and the other user concurred with my analysis but, just because, I'll ask for another 2nd opinion, this time explicitly asking if the article should be listed or not listed as it stands (ie. without further editing). I will make my final decision based on that opinion. Canadian   Paul  13:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to note, my power was knocked out in that freak storm two nights ago, so my presence on wiki is going to be very limited until its restored. Parsecboy (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Aircorn's second opinion
There is a bit of "this fact", "that fact" writing style, but the rest of the prose was understandable. I tend to use understandability as the minimum requirement when reviewing and it passes that in my opinion. So as far as list or not, based solely on the prose I would go with list (once the above mentioned sentence is fixed). AIR corn (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC) I should have been clearer. I don't get what is meant by "after which fitting-out work commenced". Does it mean that after the boat was launched more work was done to it? The use of the dash in this sentence looks out of place too. AIR corn (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Victorious was laid down at the Chatham Dockyard on 28 May 1894, launched on 19 october 1895—after which fitting-out work commenced. Not sure what this means (October needs fixing either way). AIR corn (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the second opinion. So there you have it: once the above sentence has been dealt with, I will pass this article for Good Article status. Canadian   Paul  14:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing the confusion is over the specific terms? I've added links to Ship naming and launching, Ship commissioning, and corrected the capitalization of October. There isn't an article for keel laying, so a link to keel will have to suffice there. Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, looks like we're all good to go here then. Sorry for the delay but congratulations for your hard work. Canadian   Paul  20:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all, thanks for the review. Parsecboy (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)