Talk:HMS Magnificent (1894)

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Ed! in topic GA Review
Good articleHMS Magnificent (1894) 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.
Good topic starHMS Magnificent (1894) is part of the Predreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 20, 2012Good article nomineeListed
August 23, 2020Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Magnificent (1894)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 13:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply


  • This might be minor, but you show the abbreviation "RN" for Royal Navy, and the never use that abbreviation. Is it even necessary to mention?
    • I guess not.
  • "A gun explosion aboard Magnificent on 14 June 1905 resulted in 18 casualties." -- any idea why the guns exploded? Normally it wouldn't be as important, but those 18 casualties seem to be the only ones the ship ever suffered.
    • Turns out it was a bad shell in one of the 6-inch guns.
  • "during this service, she temporarily was flagship of the Commander-in-Chief in November 1907" -- Mention who the Commander-in-Chief was at the time.
  • "Her sternwalk was damaged in a collision in December 1910." -- Any idea what she collided with?
    • Conway's doesn't give any other information, and I haven't been able to find anything on it in the old naval annuals and the like.
  • "The Majestic-class ships were by then the oldest and least effective battleships in service in the Royal Navy." -- needs its own cite.
    • That's covered by the Burt reference after the following sentence.
  • Reference section has a book by a "Carrow" but the footnote says it is "Callow."
    • Should be Callow
  • "Carrow" also needs an ISBN
    • ISBNs only go back to the 1970s - it's the same with the ref added for the gun explosion.
  • The ISBNs are presented inconsistently. Please include dashes in all or none of them.
    • Fixed.
  • Dup link tool shows four results: Chatham Shipyard, Chatham, Royal Navy, and Belfast.
    • Should all be fixed.
Mostly minor things. On hold pending fixing. —Ed!(talk) 14:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for reviewing the article, everything should be fixed up. Let me know if there's anything I missed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Great work. Now passing the article. —Ed!(talk) 15:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Reply