Talk:HMS Raven II/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 07:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Progression
[edit]- Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
- Version of the article when review was closed: [2]
Technical review
[edit]- Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
- Disambiguations: two dab links [3]:
- Linkrot: External links check out [4] (no action required).
- Alt text: Image lacks alt text [5] (suggestion only).
- Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks using Google reveal no issues [6] (no action required).
Criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- "HMS Raven II was a seaplane carrier of the Royal Navy used during World War I...", consider a minor reword as "HMS Raven II was a seaplane carrier of the Royal Navy during World War I." (suggestion only)
- I prefer the current wording because it emphasizes that she was only briefly in British service.
- This is a little unclear: "...she was seized whilst in Port Said, Egypt and was requisitioned for service under...", seized by who?
- Missing word here: "...and its primary duty was watch Turkish positions..."
- Not sure about this: "...her aircraft dropped 91 20 pounds (9.1 kg)...", should this be "...her aircraft dropped ninety-one 20-pound (9.1 kg)..." per WP:ORDINAL.
- Some inconsistency in language as use seem to use Ottoman and Turkish interchangably. Perhaps chose one and use it consistently?
- "...one 65 pounds (29 kg) bomb and eight 16 pounds (7.3 kg)...", should be "...one 65-pound (29 kg) bomb and eight 16-pound (7.3 kg)..." as they are adjectives.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- All major points cited using WP:RS.
- Consistent citation style used throughout.
- No issues with OR.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- All major aspects appear to be covered without being too detailed.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation):
b (all significant views):
- No issues here.
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- All recent edits look constructive.
- No edit wars etc.:
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned):
b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):
c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
- Image has a fair use rationale and appears to be appropriate for the article. Do you know what date the photo was taken? This should be added to the discription if available.
- Be nice to know when, because she sure looks dirty. Makes me wonder if it's a late picture and she's a collier.
- No problem. Anotherclown (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Be nice to know when, because she sure looks dirty. Makes me wonder if it's a late picture and she's a collier.
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- Only a couple of minor points above to addresss. Happy to discuss any points you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- All done. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Too easy. Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- All done. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- a Pass/Fail: