 | HMS Royal Oak (1892) 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 Royal Oak (1892) 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
.svg)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Royal Oak (1892)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 13:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll aim to get to this on the weekend. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Toolbox checks -- no dab or EL issues.
Prose/content/structure -- please check I haven't altered meaning with my (fairly minor) copyedit; only thing outstanding is that the data for the torpedo tubes seems to differ a fair bit between text and infobox, so some reconciliation might be necessary.
Images/sources -- no concerns.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Your edits look fine, although I'm not sure that the issue is with the torpedo tubes. She had seven when completed and four of them were removed in 1902. Do I need to rephrase that for clarity?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry mate, for some reason I didn't see your response highlighted in my watchlist -- the discrepancy doesn't seem to be in the number but in the size of tubes -- 14-in in the text and 18-in in the infobox... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- D'oh! Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Cool -- passing now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- D'oh! Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry mate, for some reason I didn't see your response highlighted in my watchlist -- the discrepancy doesn't seem to be in the number but in the size of tubes -- 14-in in the text and 18-in in the infobox... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)