Talk:HMS Inflexible (1907)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HistorianBell 08:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC) GA Review begun on 15 November 2009.

• Well-written:
  • (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; No
  • (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. Mostly Yes
• Factually accurate and verifiable: Yes
  • (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; Yes
  • (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; Yes and
  • (c) it contains no original research. Yes
• Broad in its coverage: Yes
  • (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Yesand
  • (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Yes
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Yes
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.Yes
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes
  • (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; Yes and
  • (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Yes

Explanation of the No and the Mostly Yes above: Generally the prose is clear and the spelling looks good. However, there are some grammar mistakes. Theses include:

• Battle of Jutland section. The sentence "All the torpedoes missed although one passed underneath Inflexible without detonating" should have a comma after missed.
  • Fixed
• Armament section, "Her anti-aircraft armament consisted of a single QF 3 inch 20 cwt AA gun on a high-angle MKII mount at the aft end of the superstructure that was carried from July 1915 and a 3-pounder Hotchkiss gun on a high-angle MkIc mounting with a maximum elevation of 60° that was mounted in November 1914 and used until August 1917." This is a run-on.
  • Broken up.
• Also in Armament section, "Five 18-inch (450-mm) submerged torpedo tubes were fitted on the Invincibles, two on each side and one in the stern[9] and fourteen torpedoes were carried." This is an awkward sentence. Also, were the tubes in the hull under the waterline?
  • I'm willing to take suggestions on this as it is still awkwardly short even after I broke it up. Where else would the submerged tubes be? You think I need to specify that they're in the hull?
    • You could. I'm not an expert on surface vessels. When I think torpedo tubes on a surface combatant, I'm thinking like a destroyer where it has the tubes usually on the deck. Maybe change it to "Inflexible, like the other battle-cruisers of the Invincible class, mounted five torpedo tubes in its hull. Installed below the waterline, two of the submerged tubes were mounted on either side of the bow and one in the stern." Just my own stab at it. But as it stands, its good now. --HistorianBell 06:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Construction section is one long run on sentence. Split it up.
  • Done
• World War I section, there are some missing commas in places. These include "On the outbreak of World War I Inflexible was flagship of the Mediterranean Fleet." There should be a comma after "World War I". There are others. Take a quick read through.
  • Hopefully I caught these.
• Furthermore, in the section on the Battle of Falklands, there are a number of contractions (specifically "didn't"). Nowhere else in the article are there these types of contractions.

Fixed. --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Overall, very good. Make the corrections, and I will take the hold off of it.--HistorianBell 08:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Changes were made. I'm taking the hold off. --HistorianBell 06:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)