Talk:HMS Agincourt (1913)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) 06:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The image File:HMS Agincourt (Royal Navy battleship) .jpg has a fair use rational claim of

Purpose of use - To identify and illustrate HMS Agincourt

Replaceable? - No HMS Agincourt was scrapped in 1924.

as there are another three images of the ship in the article the fair use claim is dubious

Deleted

There are a mixture of numeric and alphabetical number used

of 22 Babcock and Wilcox water-tube boiler

fourteen BL 12-inch Mk XIII 45-calibre guns

mounted eighteen BL 6-inch Mk XIII 50-calibre guns.

Its your choice but I suggest the 22 is changed to twenty-two

See the third bullet of WP:Ordinal, the BL might provide enough separation, but that's your call.

Citation 9 need the publisher details added
- Done
One disamb link for Generator
- Done

On hold

Well done as normal, I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]