Talk:HMS Ramillies (07)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 05:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is in good shape. A few comments from me:

• in the lead "in the mid-1910s" seems redundant to First World War
  • My thought was that your average reader wouldn't know exactly when the war was.
• in the lead, suggest linking interwar period for interwar
  • Good idea
• the beam measurements don't match between the body and infobox
  • Fixed - I wasn't paying attention when I rewrote it and the figure in the body was for the ships as completed without the bulges, but Ramillies had the bulges installed during construction.
• the boilers are described as being Yarrow in the body and Babcock & Wilcox in the infobox
  • Again, not paying attention - only Resolution and Royal Oak got the Yarrows ;)
• shp in full and linked in the body
  • Done
• the sea trial speed in the body is 22 kn, but the infobox says 21.5?
  • Fixed
• the range rounding doesn't match between the body and infobox
  • Fixed
• suggest putting the bulkhead armour range in the infobox, rather than just the thickest
  • Good idea
• what types of aircraft were carried by her?
  • Hmm, Burt doesn't cover this, nor does Conway's - I'll ask @Sturmvogel 66:, since he has Raven & Roberts - hopefully they'll have something.
    • Nothing's given in any of the sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Radars are introduced for the "pom-poms" without mentioning them until a couple of sentences later. This para would benefit from being more chronological, even if the radars and weapons are mixed up a little.
  • Re-ordered
• suggest "should not be risked in further such sorties" as future tense is assumed
  • Good point
• "Great Fire of Smyrna" in the lead, and "Great fire of Smyrna" later. Suggest choosing one.
  • Fixed
• "to country the strength" counter?
  • Good catch
• link Regia Marina
  • Done
• "three surviving sisters" which ship had been lost?
  • Added a note on that
• most ISBNs are hyphenated, two aren't
  • Fixed (and standardized on 13-digit ISBNs too)
• the Further reading section includes sources I would expect to have been consulted for this article, like Conway's and Rohwer. Why haven't they been cited?
  • Conway's doesn't go into the level of detail as Burt and Raven & Roberts, so it felt redundant to cite it for what they cover in greater depth. And Rohwer doesn't add anything beyond what Burt and Smith cover. Reviews of Johnston indicate it's a collection of diaries, memoirs, and recollections of former crewmen, so it didn't seem to be worth the trouble of tracking down a copy.
• image licensing seems fine.

That's me done. Placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks PM! Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)