Talk:Osmaniye-class ironclad/GA1

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 03:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * - I wonder if you've lost track of this one? Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, got a bit busy. Please accept my apologies. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 08:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, take your time. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Lead and infobox;
 * heavily rebuilt into more modern -> heavily modernized
 * I don't think "modernized" really captures what was done to the ships - that usually means less radical changes than what happened here.
 * considered rebuilding the ships a second time -> considered rebuilding the ships for the second time
 * Done
 * but abandoned the idea due to their "economic" or "financial" state
 * It was the condition of the ships, not the Ottoman finances that led to the abandonment of the project - added "deteriorated" instead
 * Infobox; Please check the In commission years, I think it is to be 1885
 * Good catch, but it should be 1865
 * Section 1; all good
 * Section 1.1; all good; Consistency maintained, all the parameters—Displacement, Length, Beam, Draft, Power, Propulsion, Speed, Armament and armor—seem fine. Conversion templates and links in right place


 * Section 1.2;
 * 25.4 mm (1.00 in); maintain consistency with others, please fix the template to display one decimal digit
 * Fixed
 * Section 3;
 * were heavily rebuilt in the early 1890s, being converted into more modern barbette ships; Please follow the suggestion from lead
 * This dup link script pretty many dup links, but I think there is some error in that. Please verify.
 * Yeah, I've noticed lately the duplink checker isn't considering the lead and body separate sections anymore. Maybe I'll ask Ucucha about that.
 * Ah, would you look at that! Somebody beat me to it, and there's a fix we can do.
 * 0% confidence, violation unlikely.
 * Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 11:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2017 (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) 16:46, 15 June 2017 (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) 16:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 16:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)