Talk:HMS Neptune (1874)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aeonx (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This is my first GA review; looks good so far, but please give me until tomorrow to allow me to review the article throughly before I finish the checklist. Thanks, Aeonx (talk)

Technical review

• (a) Disambiguations: (b) Linkrot: (c) Alt text:

• dablinks to: Russo-Turkish War & Skylight - could be clarified. (Russo-Turkish War:  Done)
• external link is valid.
• images lack alt text, but not technically required for GA status.
• WP:GENFIXES : {{Commonscat}} -> {{Commons category}}; citation of ''Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1860-1905'': |date -> |year  Done

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Generally quite good. Fairly heavy use of nautical terms; however the article would be difficult to write otherwise and sufficient links are available to obtain meaning; no significant problems with prose. One note:
   >"Neptune proved a poor seakeeper as she was wet, difficult to manoeuvre and a heavy roller." - Could clarify the intended meaning of this sentence; Is it simply stating that Neptune was difficult to manoeuvre during high seas? What does "heavy rolller" imply to a reader perhaps not nautically informed?
   

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Overall it passes, some notes:
   >"Neptune rammed HMS Victory" -> clarify further as: "Neptune unintentionally rammed HMS Victory", reason being ramming generally refers to a targeted action or attack. Done
   >"She had a 12-foot (3.7 m) skylight over the wardroom that was usually flooded while the ship was at sea." -> "that was" -> ", which as a result" Done; This sentence is somewhat trivial, however I think it's good as it demonstrates belief that the ship design had many oversights.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   >Ok, Gardiner reference could include a link to [1] as all cited pages are available to preview online.
   >OCLC numbers could be additionally provided; but are not required and ISBNs are available for all sources anyways.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Looks sufficient and reliable to meeting GA class rating criteria.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No issues.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Short service history, but it covers the major aspects appropriately.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Reads neutral.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No problems.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Images look ok, captions are good.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm happy to pass this as GA class. There are some minor fixes/additions which could be made; however I do not feel there are necessary to meet the GA criteria. Please review these suggestions and incorporate/discuss as appropriate. Thanks.