# Talk:HMS Royal Sovereign (1891)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/hms-royal-sovereign-off-malta-25947
Artist died 1917--05:00, 7 July 2011 User:Geni

I've uploaded it to Commons. Rod. ~~06:49, 7 July 2011 User:Rcbutcher
The copyright on the painting may have expired - but you uploaded a photograph of the painting, and the copyright on that belongs to the National Museum of the Royal Navy Portsmouth (see [1]).  The photograph has been digitally watermarked to help the copyright owners enforce the copyright (see [2]).--Toddy1 (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
See [3], which says "Images and data related to the images may be reproduced for non-commercial research and private study purposes. However, for ALL other uses, you need to actively obtain further consent from the contributing collection."--Toddy1 (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
They can make whatever claims they like. Enforcing them though well Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp..©Geni 16:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Geni is correct. A simple photograph of a 2-dimensional object which is already in the public domain, cannot be copyrighted. Read the text of commons:template:PD-Art.  Claims of non-existent copyright should be ignored as they are dishonest. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Royal Sovereign (1891)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 10:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


### GA criteria
Well-written: With the issues below addressed, the article complies with MOS policies on grammatical and structural layout. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation
Verifiable with no original research: The article relies on several reputable publications, and does not appear to include anything resembling original research. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
(c) it contains no original research
Broad in its coverage: The article seems to cover all relevant aspects of its topic. No information incorporated here seems trivial or otherwise unnecessary. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. The article's tone remains consistently unbiased. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Since at least five years ago, the article has not been subjected to any edit-warring or similar disruptions. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: All images used in the article are public domain, thereby free of copyright-related risks. All of them are relevant to the article, and are appropriately captioned. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

"Technical characteristics", par. 2: In the sentence, "Unfortunately, some of her boiler tubes were observed to crack and leak under the pressures involved, so that the Navy decided not to push the boilers...", the wording might flow better if reworded as "Unfortunately, some of her boiler tubes were observed to crack and leak under the pressures involved; as a result, the Navy decided...".
Just stopping by because I mentioned to Sturm I might take a look at this one.  Since I'm late, I don't want to interfere except on this point: first off, either way you express the sentence above, grammatically it sounds like the observation was unfortunate, not the cracking; secondly, "unfortunately" is a bit on the emotive and editorializing side anyway. I'd strongly suggest dropping "unfortunately" entirely; apart from that word, I'd be quite happy with the second form of the sentence, as suggested by Will. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
"Construction and career", par. 2 and 3: Wouldn't it be better to condense "...from 7 July to 11 July" to "from 7-11 July"; the same for "From 5 August to 9 August 1903"? It seems a bit verbally repetitive as is. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Both suggestions are good ideas, thank you both for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@Wilhelmina Will: Where are we on this?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I am so sorry; there have been a lot of things going on in my domestic life, and it's kept me away from Wikipedia all this time. Yes, I'd say things have much improved in the article, now, and I also want to lend thanks to Ian Rose for his input. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 I must apologize again for what was probably a very irritating delay. With hopes that it will also appease the situation, I am pleased to announce that, checking against the criteria, I believe this article qualifies as GA. Congratulations! Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

And another few years after that broken up? Isn't that astonishing and should be explained in the article or was that kind of normal, back in the day? --84.190.201.130 (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

She was functionally obsolete by the date of her refit, but the Admiralty was unwilling to acknowledge that until Admiral Jacky Fisher became 1st Sea Lord in 1905 and purged the RN of its obsolete ships to cut its costs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Very interesting, thank You very much! --84.190.201.130 (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)