# Talk:HMS Magnificent (1894)

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Magnificent (1894)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 13:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This might be minor, but you show the abbreviation "RN" for Royal Navy, and the never use that abbreviation. Is it even necessary to mention?
I guess not.
"A gun explosion aboard Magnificent on 14 June 1905 resulted in 18 casualties." -- any idea why the guns exploded? Normally it wouldn't be as important, but those 18 casualties seem to be the only ones the ship ever suffered.
Turns out it was a bad shell in one of the 6-inch guns.
"during this service, she temporarily was flagship of the Commander-in-Chief in November 1907" -- Mention who the Commander-in-Chief was at the time.
"Her sternwalk was damaged in a collision in December 1910." -- Any idea what she collided with?
Conway's doesn't give any other information, and I haven't been able to find anything on it in the old naval annuals and the like.
"The Majestic-class ships were by then the oldest and least effective battleships in service in the Royal Navy." -- needs its own cite.
That's covered by the Burt reference after the following sentence.
Reference section has a book by a "Carrow" but the footnote says it is "Callow."
Should be Callow
"Carrow" also needs an ISBN
ISBNs only go back to the 1970s - it's the same with the ref added for the gun explosion.
The ISBNs are presented inconsistently. Please include dashes in all or none of them.
Fixed.
Dup link tool shows four results: Chatham Shipyard, Chatham, Royal Navy, and Belfast.
Should all be fixed.
Mostly minor things. On hold pending fixing. —Ed!(talk) 14:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the article, everything should be fixed up. Let me know if there's anything I missed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Great work. Now passing the article. —Ed!(talk) 15:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)