Talk:HMS Lord Nelson (1906)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul 03:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, hopefully tomorrow. Canadian Paul 03:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are!

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:

Under "Mediterranean operations, 1916-1918", second paragraph, it is written: "Of all the responsibilities given the two ships, the most important was to guard the Eastern Mediterranean against a breakout by Goeben." This seems a little POV to me, as I don't get a sense from the paragraph about why this operation was the "most important." Even a little more citation could help this out: "According to John Smith, a World War I naval historian, the most important responsibility was..." That way, you've attributed the POV and it doesn't look like it was just the bias of the article writer.

Done.

Same paragraph, "She was given a short refit at Malta in October 1918." To someone who doesn't know much about World War I, this sentence may be a bit unclear as to who "she" is referring to since, per the last sentence it could look as if it is referring to either the Lord Nelson or the Goeben.

Done.

Per WP:LEAD, the introduction should cover all major sections of the article and should not contain any facts that are not presented in the main body. There is currently nothing in the lead from the "Construction and description" section, and the first two sentences of the lead are not present in the body. Solving one, however, is likely to solve the other as well, haha.

Typically I don't put ship stats into the lead as they're hard to summarize and I've had articles pass FAC without doing so.

The second external link needs to be more than a bare URL.

Agreed.

And that's about it! I am going to put the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that changes can be made. I'm always open to discussion, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up in real life, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 16:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like it's another Good Article for you! Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 16:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]