Talk:Canopus-class battleship/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   No bullet lists in infobox. See [1].

Fixed bullet lists. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 05:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   All of your references to Gray, p. 35 are to the wrong volume of Conway's. You're actually referring to the 1860-1905 volume.

Fixed. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 05:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Still not satisfied with the technical description of the ships, although it's better than before. Lots of facts in the infobox have no supporting information in the main body, forex the armour layout, secondary armament, horsepower, etc. Please do not simply cite them, but explain them to the reader; the class article needs this kind of detail. See any of Parsec's or Cam's FAC class articles for a model. Some stats for the weapons would also be useful; you can get them at Navweps.com. I'd strongly suggest using Wizardman's Attacker class escort carrier article as a model for the ship history section. Build or copy a table to provide all the basic info like laid down date, etc., then organize the ship histories by theme since so many went to the Dardanelles. That will keep the reader engaged better than the current layout.

I have to leave now, the table is only a fraction done, I would be grateful if you would help me finish it. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 05:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added a launched column and added proper dates for all ships from Conways, so the table is finished.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've started work on the rest. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 19:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 Doing... Is navweaps.com a RS? WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 23:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

1. B. Focused:

   How does the references to Caesar and Illustrious apply to this article? How are the torpedo tubes positioned? The light guns, etc.

I fixed the refs to Ceasar and Illustrious, will fix the rest later. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 04:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the torp tubes and the light guns... Remember, I just jumped on the boat and improved it ref and structure-wise. The torps are submerged, so I guess they point out the side, more or less perpendicularly.

1. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

2. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

3. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

4. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Be back later with fixes. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 04:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What's the status on this?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Responding... WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 23:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to give you another week to finish this off.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No significant recent edits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)