Talk:Canopus-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC) I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, hope it passes. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 02:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The class, the class is redundant in the first para of the lead. Rephrase. Primary armament didn't include any 6-inch guns. Laid down dates not suitable for lead. Expand third para, better describing their service. Geographic locations OK for peacetime activity, but should link to campaigns for wartime.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Cites 3 and 8 are identical; consolidate them and use the proper en dash between the page #s.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Description and design section grossly inadequate for a class article. See Parsecboy's König class battleship for a good example of what needs to be included. That's what I've used as my model. My policy is to link and or convert everything in the infobox and in the main text; it's not an issue if you choose not to do it here, but it will be at ACR if you want to take this that far. Convert the displacement in the infobox. Link directly to water-tube boilers. More details needed on ship's careers. Consider using a table listing construction dates, etc.

   B. Focused:

   Is no range or endurance figure available? Coal, oil or mixed-firing? Only one link to Dardanelles Campaign needed. How many boilers?

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   The pictures of Ocean and Goliath are improperly licensed. If you want to use them then you need a NFUR. I'd suggest finding other pictures with better licenses. Anything credited to the Imperial War Museum should be fine.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Failed as non-responsive.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)