Talk:HMS Hindustan (1903)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 17:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Will look at this one. —Ed!(talk) 17:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written:
- Pass Dab links, dup links and external links tools all show no problems. Copyvio tool returns green.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable:
- Pass Offline sources accepted in good faith, checks of Google Books return results generally in line with article content.
- It is broad in its coverage:
- Not yet
- Any idea of unit cost for ships of the class? Also when the budget for construction was authorized?
- See my comment on the Commonwealth review on unit cost, and the King Edward VIIs were ordered under the 1901, 1902, and 1903 estimates, but Burt doesn't give a specific breakdown that I see.
- "Grand Fleet commander, Admiral John Jellicoe, ordered Bradford to take the 3rd Battle Squadron" -- No first reference to Bradford.
- Fixed
- "during which a German U-boat attacked the battleships but failed to score a hit.[13]" -- any idea which one? Can be a footnote if not clear.
- No, unfortunately
- "and collided with and badly damaged the destroyer HMS Wrestler in May 1918." -- Should note if no damage to this ship, and any damage to Wrestler.
- Clarified that Hindustan was not damaged
- Should be a mention of if there were any battle honours, or none if applicable.
- Nothing I've seen in Burt or elsewhere.
- Not yet
- It follows the neutral point of view policy:
- Pass No problems there.
- It is stable:
- Pass No problems there.
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
- Pass Four images cited to PD or CC where appropriate.
- Other:
- On Hold Pending a few fixes. —Ed!(talk) 17:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks again, Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- On Hold Pending a few fixes. —Ed!(talk) 17:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Pass All of this works. As is the article meets the GA criteria to me. Well done! —Ed!(talk) 00:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)