GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 03:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Lead
Development
Construction and career
References

Other than that, it seems to meet all the GA criteria. I'm a non-expert on this subject, so Sturmvogel 66 or someone might have further comments, but once these get addressed, I'm comfortable passing this one for GA. Gonna place on hold. Hog Farm Bacon 21:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a rigorous review and excellent suggestions for improvements. I do not have an OCLC for Parkes and Prendergast so I have changed the reference to the 1969 reprint which does. All the other changes have been made. Please tell me if there is anything else. simongraham (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Simongraham: - Just got one question. Are the page numbers the same for the two editions? Getting the page numbers correct is much more important than the OCLC in my view, so if you can't verify the 1969 page number, just go with the 1919 version with no OCLC. Hog Farm Bacon 03:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: - No problem. The ship is on the same page in both. simongraham (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm gonna pass this one now. Hog Farm Bacon 01:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]