Talk:Revenge-class battleship/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 12:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll chip away at this over the week. I assume that this is heading for FAC, and so will assess at that level, unless you ask me not to.
- At least one book in References does not have its full title.
- Fixed Massie. All of the others are complete, AFAIK--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Optional: alt text for images other than the infobox one.
- Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- Queen Elizabeth class diagrams Brasseys 1923.jpg needs a USPD tag.
- Added
- Optional: There are 2 images each of Royal Oak and Ramillies, but none of Resolution ...
- "were a group of five superdreadnought battleships" Should that "were" be 'was'?
- "relegated to secondary duties like convoy escort and naval gunfire support" Suggestion only: "like" → 'such as'?
- "In the early 1900s, Germany challenged Britain in a naval arms race under the direction of Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz. The race was exacerbated by the dreadnought revolution; the British Royal Navy embarked on a construction programme to out-build the Germans to maintain its dominance of the seas." Optional: Would this not read better as 'In the early 1900s, Germany challenged Britain in a naval arms race under the direction of Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz; the race was exacerbated by the dreadnought revolution. The British Royal Navy embarked on a construction programme to out-build the Germans to maintain its dominance of the seas.'?
- Good point, but I've gone a slightly different way. See if it works for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sure; it looks better to me.
- "They were nevertheless to return to a maximum speed of 21 knots" I am not sure about "to return to". What were they returning to?
- The old standard fleet speed of 21 knot that the QE's had been an exception to. But I'm going to drop the whole sentence because the reader's told in the first sentence of the para that these ships were slower than the QEs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- "The initial design completed by d'Eyncourt" Suggestion: 'd'Eyncourt's team'.
- Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- "Throughout June and July, the ships participated in the fighting in the collapsing Ottoman Empire; Ramillies and Revenge shelled Turkish troops around Ismid in June and both ships, joined by Royal Sovereign, assisted with Greek landings elsewhere in the collapsing Ottoman Empire". No full sto[p; "in the collapsing Ottoman Empire" twice.
- Cleaned this up. Are you saying that I should substitute a full stop for the semi-colon?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- No. You had missed it off the end of the sentence. Now sorted.
- "removing all three from their posts for courts-martial." My understanding was that Keyes relieved all three, ordered a court of inquiry and sent them back to England; but the courts martial were brought about by Dewar and Daniel requesting them.
- @Parsecboy:, you got anything on this?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- "The Revenges and Queen Elizabeths again trades places in 1935" "trades".
- "each ship had a pair of HACS Mk III systems in lieu of their anti-aircraft control positions, except for Ramillies which received Mk I directors and QF four-inch Mk XVI AA guns in twin mounts replaced the single Mk V guns." Assuming that each ship received four-inch Mk XVI AA guns there should be a comma after "directors".
- Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- "but was not seriously damaged" Suggestion only: 'was damaged, but not seriously'.
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Optional for GA: It would be interesting to have some information on the type and weight of shells fired by the main guns.
- How did I forget this info? I always put it in the class article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
That may be all I have. If you could address the comments above, I will then have another read through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Your comments have been very helpful, see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Good. Happy to help. Good work. Promoting. I look forward to going through it again at ACR and/or FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
