Talk:HMS Invincible (1907)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The lead should be a summary of the article, and not contain new information. This means that most of the lead needs to be re-written, and more information needs to be added (and sourced) in the body. The information on the ship class as a whole being the brainchild of Fisher, and the pros and cons of the class, is the information I'm the most focused on.

Lemme see about that. Most of what you're looking for is in the class article where it belongs.

Rewrote the lead to focus on the ship's history.

Hmmm, but now the lead is too short. For an article of this length, it should be at least two solid paragraphs. Dana boomer (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, two short paragraphs coming right up.

What would you think of moving the Construction section section to before the Design section? It feels odd to start out with a discussion of the 1911 renaming, and then later in the article jump back to 1906 when the ship was laid down. The timeline would flow smoother with the sections reversed.

Let me think about it.

I added it to the general characteristics section.

~~British or American spelling? You have armor and armour, etc.~~

The name of the ship is always supposed to be italicized, correct? If so, in the Early career section, "Invincible was the first battlecruiser" is incorrect. Also, at least four different spots in Battle of the Falklands. Please check for other instances.

Done

Please check for this again. I noticed at least one (the Macedonian, mentioned twice in the first paragraph of the Falklands section) that has not been fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think I caught them all this time. My eyes tend to glaze over though.

~~Battle of Heligoland Bight, "He turned in pursuit, but reduced her to a flaming hulk". I'm not sure what the "but" is referring to, perhaps "and" would work better?~~

'But' was supposed to emphasize how quickly she was destroyed, but 'and' does read better.

Battle of the Falklands, "She had fired 513 12-inch shells during the battle[6], but had been hit twenty-two times. Two of her bow compartments were flooded and one hit on her waterline abreast 'P' turret had flooded a coal bunker and temporarily given her a 15° list." Why is this information about the German ship relevant to an article about the Invincible?

~~'Her' pretty clearly refers to Invincible considering that she'd been said to have been hit 22 times the previous sentence.~~

OK, now I understand why you were confused. The 'she' has been changed to Invincible.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Web references need to have publisher added. The publisher is the company or individual that put the information on the web. This information is needed because it makes the references easier to verify. Just as an FYI, this information is also required for A-class and FA, so if it's not added here it will be asked for again at the next step.

I've done one A-class and have another in ACR right now; you're the only person who's ever mentioned publisher as a requirement. Most of the time it's simply not available.

Publishers are always available - it may be at the bottom of the page, on the homepage, or on the "contact us/about us" page, but it's always there. No person/organization is going to post information on the web without including their name somewhere. As for your current ACR, someone (Ed, I believe) is asking for more information in the refs - i.e. publisher. I don't know what your previous A-class article was, so I can't judge that situation. If you want to check if this is required at FAC, just go look at the FAC page and see any review where User:Ealdgyth has made an extensive source review - she almost always has to mention publishers. As for other GAN's asking for publishers, check out Talk:Sociology of health and illness/GA1 and Talk:Gender aspects of globalization in China/GA1 (both reviews by the same editor, who is not me) or Talk:The Bill/GA2 (different reviewer). The publisher is a very basic piece of information to add and it is needed for verifiability. Dana boomer (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed wasn't explicitly asking for publisher, he just wanted to make sure that they were SPS. Although I suppose it's much the same overall.

~~What makes Ref #40 (THE WRECKS OF THE BATTLE OF JUTLAND) a reliable source? It appears to be a commercial website.~~

In the Invincible Today section, I see no information in the references provided that supports the conclusion that the ship's propellers have been taken by looters; as far as I can see, they say nothing about her propellers at all.

Lemme see if I can source it. Maybe I can replace Ref 40.

Deleted--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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):
The "Invincible underway" photo needs a better fair use rationale. See Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline for guidance.

It's equivalent to those listed under the historic photograph heading.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your rationale. Could you explain more fully why you don't believe this fair-use image needs a full fair-use rationale? Dana boomer (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't feel that the full thing adds much worthwhile information. But it's added anyways.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Wow, this ship was accident prone... Overall a nice article, but there are quite a few MOS, reference and image issues that need to be dealt with. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the work you have done on this article. I have added the publisher information myself, made a few more copyedit tweaks, and I am now passing the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]