Talk:Osmaniye-class ironclad/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 03:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: - I wonder if you've lost track of this one? Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: Sorry for the delay, got a bit busy. Please accept my apologies. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

No worries, take your time. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Lead and infobox;
  • heavily rebuilt into more modern -> heavily modernized
    • I don't think "modernized" really captures what was done to the ships - that usually means less radical changes than what happened here.
  • considered rebuilding the ships a second time -> considered rebuilding the ships for the second time
    • Done
  • but abandoned the idea due to their "economic" or "financial" state
    • It was the condition of the ships, not the Ottoman finances that led to the abandonment of the project - added "deteriorated" instead
  • Infobox; Please check the In commission years, I think it is to be 1885
    • Good catch, but it should be 1865
• Section 1; all good
• Section 1.1; all good; Consistency maintained, all the parameters—Displacement, Length, Beam, Draft, Power, Propulsion, Speed, Armament and armor—seem fine. Conversion templates and links in right place

• Section 1.2;
  • 25.4 mm (1.00 in); maintain consistency with others, please fix the template to display one decimal digit
    • Fixed
• Section 3;
  • were heavily rebuilt in the early 1890s, being converted into more modern barbette ships; Please follow the suggestion from lead
• This dup link script pretty many dup links, but I think there is some error in that. Please verify.
  • Yeah, I've noticed lately the duplink checker isn't considering the lead and body separate sections anymore. Maybe I'll ask Ucucha about that.
    • Ah, would you look at that! Somebody beat me to it, and there's a fix we can do.
• 0% confidence, violation unlikely.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)