Talk:HMS Renown (1916)/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:


  • To be honest I have struggled to find any fault with this one but here goes
  1. The image in the inf box has the ships name in it, I believe it does not affect GA but may come up at FAC so you might want to change it or get it cropped.
  1. We'll have to see.
  1. The image in the Design and description section is labelled as Repulse as she was in 1919 is that a typo ? or could be change into Renown class battleship in 1919
  1. Deleted.
  1. In the same section One fighter and a reconnaissance aircraft were carried if known the types of aircraft could be added.
  1. If I only knew for sure.
  1. Not the end of the world but the following section First World War is very small. Obviousley because of when she was comnpleted but it may imporve they layout to merge it into the following section as a 1916–1939 section or a section up to 1926 when she was being reconstructed
  1. Good idea.
  1. There is no mention of her being converted to carry four Supermarine Walrus aircraft
  1. That's the 1936 reconstruction. But she wasn't specifically designed to carry only Walrus aircraft, she could accommodate a maximum of four seaplanes.
  1. In the references years could be added as with Burt 1986
  1. I only do that when I have multiple references from the same author.
  1. Ref 5 and others is listed as Raven and Roberts but the book is just under John Roberts can you check its the right book or has Raven just been left off
  1. Oops, forget to add it.
  1. Ref 27 Haarr is missing from the bibliography
  1. Added.
  1. Campbell, N. J. M. and Rohwer, Jürgen are listed in the bibliography but do not appear to have been used
  1. Deleted.
  1. is used three time I have noted comments at FAC but until thats resolved it may cause problems later.
  1. Yeah, I'll have to replace them whenever I send it up for FAC.

Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)