Talk:HMS Iron Duke (1870)

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Dr. Blofeld in topic GA Review
Good articleHMS Iron Duke (1870) 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 11, 2016Good article nomineeListed

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Iron Duke (1870)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 11:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply


"The ships were also equipped with four" -I think you can get away without saying "also" here, especially with a new paragraph and repeating "also" a little further down

  • " The sides and embrasures of the upper battery were six inches thick, " -convert?
    • In the preceding para.
  • What/where is the "China station"?
    • Linked in the lede
  • "The following year, the ship ran aground herself on a sandbar entering the Huangpu River, " -1879? Do we know when? I think it would be good to be more specific with a date
    • Narrowed down.
  • " Iron Duke struck a rock off the coast of Hokkaido en route to Vladivostok in 1880." -again a more precise date would be useful
    • Source found.
  • "On 16 April 1885, the ship became a member of Admiral Geoffrey Hornby's Particular Service Squadron until August, when she joined the Channel Squadron. Iron Duke was reduced to reserve in 1890 " -is there nothing remarkable to say about late 1880s?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
    • I'll look, but I'm a bit dubious since it's peacetime and I don't have access to the London Times.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Short but sweet. Will promote once addressed Sturmvogel 66.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance:  
  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:  
    B. Focused:  
  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:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  Dr. Blofeld 18:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply