Jump to content

Talk:HMS Nelson (28)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 10:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

[edit]

I find this class of battleships to be very interesting, so I'll grab this review. I should be able to provide comments over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in excellent shape. I have only the following comments:

  • Could the first para of the 'Background and description' note when the ship was designed?
  • Is it also possible here to note her intended role (especially given the unusual design): was she intended to be part of a battle line for a major fleet, or to fill more specialised or secondary roles?
  • The photo of the model of Nelson is a bit under-whelming (especially due to the reflections on the glass case) - I'd suggest replacing this with a photo of the ship. A photo of her in her final configuration would be particularly useful.
  • "was laid up in HM Dockyard, Portsmouth for repairs" - I'm not sure this is an accurate use of the term 'laid up' - doesn't this usually apply to when ships are placed in reserve?
  • "Nelson became a private ship" - what's a private ship?
    • Link added.
  • "Nelson departed Gibraltar on 31 October for England to begin a refit." - when did this conclude?
    • Turns out to have been much shorter than I'd thought.
  • "Nelson was used around the Malayan Peninsula" - not really: she would have only operated off the west coast of the northern part of the peninsula. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For A-class, could more be said about the experiences of the crew? (was this a comfortable ship, were the captains OK, etc) Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    AGF here as I don't have access to any of the sources: the text doesn't read like it was lifted from anywhere. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: