Talk:HMS Collingwood (1882)/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 10:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll be back in an hour. JAGUAR 10:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Initial comments[edit]
- "Collingwood was not significantly damaged during an accidental collision" - you could mention that she badly damaged the Curacoa
- Yeah, but remember that the lede's a summary and the important thing is not what she did to the other ship, but what damaged was done to her.
- "by the four French Terrible-class" - link Terrible-class ship of the line? If it's correct?
- Nope, I need to write the stubs for these ships once this thing is done.
- "Barnaby was severely criticized" - criticised
- " Reed believed that this weakness meant that the ship could be sunk from the consequent uninhibited flooding if her unarmored ends" - unarmoured
- " the ship's draught increased by another 6 inches" - convert to metric
- Done in the armament section
- "The main ammunition hoists protected by armoured tubes with walls 10–12 inches thick" - The main ammunition hoists were protected by armoured tubes with walls 10–12 inches thick
- "Collingwood accidentally collided with the cruiser Curacoa" - I'm probably overthinking this, but why is the 'HMS' prefix missing?
- No dead links (in other words, the only link isn't dead!)
- No dab links
Those were all of the minor issues I could find. Is it just me or did every Royal Navy ship collide with another back in those days LOL. 
JAGUAR 13:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for tackling these so promptly. As always, I'm happy to help you win the GA reviewing portion of this contest.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
