Talk:HMS Magnificent (1894)

HMS Magnificent (1894) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

HMS Magnificent (1894) is part of the Predreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 20, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
August 23, 2020	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Maritime / British / European / World War I / Operation Majestic Titan

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force
	Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I)

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Magnificent (1894)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 13:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This might be minor, but you show the abbreviation "RN" for Royal Navy, and the never use that abbreviation. Is it even necessary to mention?
- I guess not.
"A gun explosion aboard Magnificent on 14 June 1905 resulted in 18 casualties." -- any idea why the guns exploded? Normally it wouldn't be as important, but those 18 casualties seem to be the only ones the ship ever suffered.
- Turns out it was a bad shell in one of the 6-inch guns.
"during this service, she temporarily was flagship of the Commander-in-Chief in November 1907" -- Mention who the Commander-in-Chief was at the time.
"Her sternwalk was damaged in a collision in December 1910." -- Any idea what she collided with?
- Conway's doesn't give any other information, and I haven't been able to find anything on it in the old naval annuals and the like.
"The Majestic-class ships were by then the oldest and least effective battleships in service in the Royal Navy." -- needs its own cite.
- That's covered by the Burt reference after the following sentence.
Reference section has a book by a "Carrow" but the footnote says it is "Callow."
- Should be Callow
"Carrow" also needs an ISBN
- ISBNs only go back to the 1970s - it's the same with the ref added for the gun explosion.
The ISBNs are presented inconsistently. Please include dashes in all or none of them.
- Fixed.
Dup link tool shows four results: Chatham Shipyard, Chatham, Royal Navy, and Belfast.
- Should all be fixed.

Mostly minor things. On hold pending fixing. —Ed!^(talk) 14:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article, everything should be fixed up. Let me know if there's anything I missed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. Now passing the article. —Ed!^(talk) 15:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]