Talk:HMS Basilisk (1910)
Latest comment: 15 hours ago by Simongraham in topic GA Review
 | HMS Basilisk (1910) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: May 24, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
.svg)
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Basilisk (1910)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 04:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 17:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Earwig 1.0%
- Image appropriately licensed
- Name of turbine manufacturer not necessary in the infobox
- Removed.
- Link Portsmouth in the lede, knot, yard number, commissioned, German Navy
- Added.
- Were the torpedo tubes fixed or rotating?
- Clarified with reference.
- Tell the reader what kind of ships Goeben and Breslau were
- Added
- Tell the reader that Bouvet was a French ship
- Added.
- Wemyss wasn't ennobled until after the war
- Removed.
- Bombarding, not bombing
- Changed
- One overlink
- Removed duplink to Dardanelles.
@Sturmvogel 66: Thank you for this review. Sorry for the delay - I had not realised you were finished. I believe the edits are done. Please tell me if there is anything more. simongraham (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)