Talk:HMS Milbrook (1915)/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 11:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- suggest, in the lead "In 1916, Milbrook responded with the Grand Fleet to the bombardment..."
- Amended.
- In Design and development, drop the hyphen in "earlier L-class"
- Removed.
- suggest "It transpired that the rumoured German warships did not exist."
- Amended.
- "feeding Brown-Curtiss..." Brown-Curtiss <what?> also in the infobox it says Parsons
- Clarified, in both cases.
- "less; <missing word here?> sister ship Murray"
- Removed the reference to Murray.
- "The anti-aircraft guns were later replaced by <single?> 2-pdr"?
- Added.
- link Cromarty and say it is on the east coast of Scotland
- Added.
- suggest "After the battle ended" instead of "After the end of the battle"
- Amended.
- Move the link to Scapa Flow to first mention
- Moved.
- "During the following year, Marne"?
- Amended.
- "The
Ddivision"- Corrected.
- suggest, in the lead "In 1916, Milbrook responded with the Grand Fleet to the bombardment..."
- b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a. (reference section):
- b. (citations to reliable sources):
- c. (OR):
- d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a. (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a. (major aspects):
- b. (focused):
- a. (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- The licence doesn't look right to me. The link at RMG just says the author of the photograph is unknown, it doesn't say they were RN (and therefore Crown copyright). Is there any evidence it was taken by a RN photographer? Has it been published in books which credit a RN photographer, for example? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Replaced with a photo of a different sister ship, which has the photographer named.
- Yep, that one is fine, definitely an RN photographer. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- Replaced with a photo of a different sister ship, which has the photographer named.
- The licence doesn't look right to me. The link at RMG just says the author of the photograph is unknown, it doesn't say they were RN (and therefore Crown copyright). Is there any evidence it was taken by a RN photographer? Has it been published in books which credit a RN photographer, for example? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Presuming the image licensing can be sorted, the image is appropriate (sister ship) and the caption is fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/fail:
- Pass/fail:
(Criteria marked 
are unassessed)
- Poolman is currently unused as a ref. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Good spot. Removed.
@Peacemaker67: Thank you for your rigorous review and helpful suggestions. I believe I addressed the issues you raised. Please do tell me if there is anything else. simongraham (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- No worries, passing. Well done! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)