Wikipedia:Peer review/Ottoman battleship Abdül Kadir/archive1
Appearance
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I really want to see if I can take this scrap of an article to GA.
Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment - this is just a preliminary thing first off, I'll do some digging later and see what I can do.
- The full refs to Langensiepen & Güleryüz and Keltie should be moved to the reference section and shorted, and the ref to Conways should be corrected (i.e., the short ref should be "Gardiner, p. 391")
- The design and construction sections have redundant text which should be merged/trimmed as necessary.
- I'd recommend looking through the old editions of Brassey's Annual and the like, surely they have some more information on the ship. And look under alternate spellings "like Abd el kader", etc.Parsecboy (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment - there's definitely some room to give a bit more context on why the Ottomans were building such ships (including likely adversaries in the eastern Med). The picture could be cleaned up a bit in places (let me know if you need any help with that). Hchc2009 (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's a good point - a good option for expansion is to discuss the naval arms race with Greece and that the Turks eventually turned to buying battleships from foreign yards. Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Comments
- Armor is usually one of the last things added to a ship. Framed just means that the structural members of her hull were put into position. The next step is usually to plate the hull, usually from the keel outwards. So this ship didn't get very far before she was suspended.
- What make Naval History via flix reliable?
- "as a barbette ship" is redundant, rephrase the second use of the term.
- Were the bulkheads transverse or longitudinal?
- The Ottoman Steam Navy is probably the best source used. I'd follow its account of the ship's history, which will eliminate the confusion caused by the existing statement that work continued even after the ship's frame was twisted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)