Talk:HMS Commonwealth

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Commonwealth (1903). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060222074923/http://www.pbenyon1.plus.com/Janes_1919/B_Ships/King_Edward_Cl_69.html to http://www.pbenyon1.plus.com/Janes_1919/B_Ships/King_Edward_Cl_69.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Commonwealth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 17:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Will take a look at this one. —Ed!^(talk) 17:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Dup links and external links all show no problems. Dab link tool shows one self-referencing redirect. Copyvio returns green.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass Offline sources accepted in good faith; checks of Google Books return results generally in line with article content.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Not yet

   • Any idea of unit cost for ships of the class?

   • I don't generally bother including cost, because it's basically a meaningless number - the problem is, there's no effective way to convert it to current pounds (at least so I've been told, the {{inflation}} template works based on CPI, which is not how you'd calculate for government projects like this)

   • Re: collision with Albemarle -- should mention that ship's damage too, as the collision was notable enough to be included in the lead. Also, any consequences for commanders etc.?

   • Done

   • "during which a German U-boat attacked the battleships but failed to score a hit.[13]" -- any idea which one? Can be a footnote if not clear.

   • No, unfortunately - it would be rather difficult to cross reference British and German wartime records for each and every encounter like this, and as far as I'm aware, nobody has bothered to do it

   • "Grand Fleet commander, Admiral John Jellicoe, ordered Bradford to take the 3rd Battle Squadron" -- No first reference to Bradford.

   • Good catch

   • Not seeing any commanders noted, odd a capital ship wouldn't have this recorded somewhere.

   • Burt generally doesn't mention them unless they were squadron or divisional commanders, and this ship was never a flagship

   • "she was in effect the most advanced pre-dreadnought battleship in the world." -- claim should get its own cite or indicate who said this of the ship.

   • It's covered by Burt - there's no need to repeat the same citation multiple times in the same paragraph

   • End of the article: Was the ship supplanted by a superior class at this point, or was it just general demobilization or the treaty that led to its disposal? Might be good to add considering the short service period.

   • Mostly part of the normal postwar drawdown - but I don't really have a source for this. Most of the dreadnoughts were scrapped too, though a bit later and as a result of the Washington and London treaties. I have added a line earlier in the article about Dreadnought rendering pre-dreadnoughts obsolescent, which should give readers a bit of a better idea of the ship's context.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass' Four images tagged PD and CC where appropriate.

7. Other:

   On Hold Pending a few clarifications. —Ed!^(talk) 17:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

   Thanks Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Pass My comments have been addressed to satisfaction. Thank you for your responses! —Ed!^(talk) 00:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)