Talk:HMS Raven II/GA1

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Anotherclown in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 07:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Progression

edit
  • Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
  • Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

edit

Criteria

edit
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    • "HMS Raven II was a seaplane carrier of the Royal Navy used during World War I...", consider a minor reword as "HMS Raven II was a seaplane carrier of the Royal Navy during World War I." (suggestion only)
      • I prefer the current wording because it emphasizes that she was only briefly in British service.
    • This is a little unclear: "...she was seized whilst in Port Said, Egypt and was requisitioned for service under...", seized by who?
    • Missing word here: "...and its primary duty was watch Turkish positions..."
    • Not sure about this: "...her aircraft dropped 91 20 pounds (9.1 kg)...", should this be "...her aircraft dropped ninety-one 20-pound (9.1 kg)..." per WP:ORDINAL.
    • Some inconsistency in language as use seem to use Ottoman and Turkish interchangably. Perhaps chose one and use it consistently?
    • "...one 65 pounds (29 kg) bomb and eight 16 pounds (7.3 kg)...", should be "...one 65-pound (29 kg) bomb and eight 16-pound (7.3 kg)..." as they are adjectives.
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    • All major points cited using WP:RS.
    • Consistent citation style used throughout.
    • No issues with OR.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    • All major aspects appear to be covered without being too detailed.
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation):   b (all significant views):  
    • No issues here.
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
    • All recent edits look constructive.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned):   b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):   c (non-free images have fair use rationales):   d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:  
    • Image has a fair use rationale and appears to be appropriate for the article. Do you know what date the photo was taken? This should be added to the discription if available.
      • Be nice to know when, because she sure looks dirty. Makes me wonder if it's a late picture and she's a collier.
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: