Talk:HMS Defence (1861)/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
- 'She became guard ship on the Shannon when she recommissioned' - S would this be a second recommissioning, presumably after being de-commissioned for the '72-'74 refit?
- Does that need to be specified?
- Probably wouldn't hurt to clarify.
- How does it read now?
- Probably wouldn't hurt to clarify.
- Does that need to be specified?
- 'Both breech-loading guns were new designs from Armstrong and much was hoped for them' - Not entirely sure of this, but 'from them' or 'of them' sounds more grammatically correct to me.
- Agreed
- As you did for the Valiant, can we have a footnote on the usage of Armoured frigate/ironclad?
- Done
- 'She became guard ship on the Shannon when she recommissioned' - S would this be a second recommissioning, presumably after being de-commissioned for the '72-'74 refit?
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Second paragraph of the first section on Design and Description is uncited.
- Cited.
- Do we know why she was re-rigged as a barque for a short period? Was this usual for ironclads?
- I have no idea, probably to experiment with different rigs to see what worked best for such a large ship.
- That's fine.
- I have no idea, probably to experiment with different rigs to see what worked best for such a large ship.
- And any idea why the original armament was reduced?
- When, 1867? The 7 and 8-inch muzzle-loaders were heavier than her original guns.
- Adding that would be great.
- Done.
- Adding that would be great.
- When, 1867? The 7 and 8-inch muzzle-loaders were heavier than her original guns.
- When were the 110-pound guns taken off of the Defence?
- When she refit in '67.
- Why were the ends of the ship left entirely unprotected? This seems like a major design flaw after all.
- Explained.
- 'Defence damaged her propeller and rudder when she was nearly blown ashore herself in March 1872.' - Was this due to heavy winds?
- They actual struck the bottom in the trough of one wave, but I couldn't figure out how to explain that easily.
- What you've said above makes sense, so I'd add that.
- How does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- What you've said above makes sense, so I'd add that.
- They actual struck the bottom in the trough of one wave, but I couldn't figure out how to explain that easily.
- Second paragraph of the first section on Design and Description is uncited.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- The HMS Defence (1868) picture is currently breaking the section breaks between Armament and Armour. Suggest moving to the right-hand side.
- Agreed.
- The HMS Defence (1868) picture is currently breaking the section breaks between Armament and Armour. Suggest moving to the right-hand side.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Interesting article. A few things to look at, and it can pass. Skinny87 (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)