Talk:HMS Queen (1902)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: L293D (talk · contribs) 13:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Very nice article - will be doing this in the next few days. Normally I find suggestions first and then create the review page, but I don't want to end up create conflicting with someone else. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Image review
[edit]- File:HMS Queen Spithead 1909 Flickr 4793355792 efe7c28a7d o.jpg has no US copyright tag.
- The Flikr tag is sufficient.
- File:Formidable class battleship diagrams Brasseys 1906.jpg needs a PD-1923 tag
- Added.
Source review
[edit]- All sources are reliable, cited inline and comply with MOS:REFPUNCT.
Lead
[edit]The Londons were near repeats
- quirky, reword.- Quirky, how, exactly? Are you questioning the plural ship name? That's pretty common
Due to slight differences between Queen and HMS Prince of Wales, they are sometimes referred to as the Queen class.
- which "they"? See also #Design, point number two.- Queen and Prince of Wales - isn't that obvious? They're the only ships in the sentence.
when she returned to Britain before returning
- reword- Done
Queen transferred back to
- Queen was transferred back to- Done
- A lot of "she"s in the second para - change a few to "'Queen".
- Done
ANZAC
- change to "Australian" or something similar- A lot of Kiwis might get mad about that ;) ANZAC is the correct term and is commonly used (see for instance Anzac Day)
In early 1917, she was converted into a depot ship to support the Otranto Barrage, and she was disarmed over the course of the year.
- remove comma after Barrage and remove second she.- Done
- Split last sentence in two or at least reword.
- Done
Design
[edit]it was a virtual repeat the preceding Formidable class
- makes no sense; again, reword.- I don't see how this makes no sense - the design for the Londons/Queens was essentially a repeat of the Formidables
- At least add an 'of' then.
- Ah, I hadn't noticed that.
- At least add an 'of' then.
- I don't see how this makes no sense - the design for the Londons/Queens was essentially a repeat of the Formidables
Due to slight differences between the last two members of the class—Queen and Prince of Wales—and the rest of the London-class ships, these vessels are sometimes referred to as the Queen class.
- again, who "they" is for is unclear. Bigger problem though is that the sentence assumes that Queen and Prince of Wales are in the same class; this is not true.- They are the same class - and again, they are the only ships referred to in the sentence, so it should be clear that it is those ships that are the ones being referenced.
- The article on HMS Prince of Wales (1902) says that Prince was a Formidable class ship. If Queen is a London class ship, then how can the two be in the same class?
- See here.
- The article on HMS Prince of Wales (1902) says that Prince was a Formidable class ship. If Queen is a London class ship, then how can the two be in the same class?
- They are the same class - and again, they are the only ships referred to in the sentence, so it should be clear that it is those ships that are the ones being referenced.
- Link Full load.
- That's just a redirect to a section on Displacement (ship), which is already linked
The Formidable-class ships had a top speed
- change to Queen had a top speed, since you just said that Queen's machinery was different from other class ships.- They all had the same top speed - and their machinery was the same, Queen just had different boilers
- Move link to Barbette from para 4 to 3.
- Done
protected with 6 in of Krupp steel
change in to inches and link Krupp.- Did Krupp armour instead. Parsecboy (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Pre-World War I
[edit]HMS Queen was laid down at Devonport Dockyard on 12 March 1901. Lady Charles Scott (wife of Admiral Lord Charles Scott), Lady Ernestine Edgcumbe, Mrs. Jackson (wife of Rear-Admiral T. S. Jackson), and Mrs. Champness (wife of Chief Constructor of Devonport Dockyard H. B. Champness) took part in the ceremony.
- some people don't know that laying down is a ceremony, so maybe clarify that- Added a link to keel laying
She was launched and named by Queen Alexandra on 8 March 1902
- the ship was launched by Alexandra too?- Yes
It was the first major public event attended by the couple since the end of the mourning period after his accession
- perhaps change "his" to "King Edward's". That would also make the She in the next sentence easier to read.- Done, and changed the "she" to "The ship" to avoid any confusion with Alexandra
then recommissioned on 8 May 1906 to return to the Mediterranean
- remove link since you already linked Mediterranean in the preceding sentence.- Those are different links - the first is to the unit, the second is to the Mediterranean Sea.
became Fleet Flagship, Vice Admiral
- a little confusing, you're not talking to a Vice Admiral. Maybe "Fleet Flagship of the Vice admiral" would do better.- That's an official title in the Royal Navy.
In April 1914 she became 2nd Flagship, Rear Admiral,
- same as above.- Same as above. Parsecboy (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
World War I
[edit]A flotilla of destroyers and monitors helped to break up the attack before Queen and Implacable arrived, but reports of an imminent German counterattack with armoured cruisers, which ultimately failed to materialize, led the British to send the battleships to guard against it in company with the Harwich Force.
- a little long, perhaps split in two sentences- Done
When it had become clear that the German fleet posed no threat, they returned to the Channel Fleet
- "they" is a little unclear here. I know its probably Queen and Implacable, but you just mentioned German forces, the Harwick Force, Armored cruisers, destroyers and monitors.- Done
On 14 November 1914, the 5th Battle Squadron was transferred to Sheerness in case of a possible German invasion attempt, but it returned to Portland on 30 December 1914.
- 'it' could be misread as being the German invasion force.- Done
In March 1915, as the British and French fleets waging the Dardanelles campaign were preparing to launch a major attack on 18 March, the overall commander, Admiral Sackville Carden, requested two more battleships of the 5th Squadron, Implacable and Queen, to be transferred to his command in the expectation of losses in the coming operation.
- also a little too long, in my opinion. Link Dardanelles Campaign and remove link to Dardanelles- There's no good way to split that up - linked Dardanelles campaign, but the link to Dardanelles is useful
From December 1916 to February 1917, Queen was refitted for service as a depot ship for the personnel of the Otranto Barrage that blocked German and Austro-Hungarian U-boats from passing through the Strait of Otranto.
- the barrage attempted to block U-boats, in reality they caught only one in the whole war.- Fair point
Queen became flagship of British Naval Forces, Taranto, serving as such until February 1918
- naval forces in Taranto should sound better- "British Naval Forces, Taranto" is another proper name. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Infobox review
[edit]There is an inconsistency in the normal displacement between the infobox and prose. Otherwise that's it. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Nice work. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
GA Progress
[edit]Good Article review progress box
|
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.