# Talk:Centurion-class battleship

This review is transcluded from Talk:Centurion-class battleship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 04:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is in great shape. A few comments:

check Brit/US Eng - armored and armoured both in lead, draught but authorized
link armoured cruiser at first mention
Linked in the lede
rounding difference for draught between body and infobox
Good catch
not sure about this, but the calibre rendering/conversion isn't consistent, some in inches as primary, others in mm?
That's what happens when you buy guns from the French.
the smaller secondary battery doesn't match between the body and infobox
Good catch.
Still showing one as 37mm and the other as 47mm. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 23:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Ooops.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
" that advocated"
could you add a bit of information about the names? eg This was the Nth RN ship to be named Centurion, and/or Barfleur was named after...?
I save that for the individual ship articles.
would China Station be sufficiently notable for an article?
I'm not sure that the sourcing would be readily available to do that.
you could probably get away with moving the Citations to 20em to eliminate whitespace
Good idea.
draught and knots are overlinked
I almost always forget to do that for some strange reason.
with the diagram, it says first-class battleships?
Your guess is as good as mine.
also with the diagram licensing, do we know when Barnes died?
Updated the licensing.
other images look fine to me.
That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 08:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, happy to look at the ships of class once the relevant points raised here are addressed there too. I noticed the secondary battery issue is common to all three, haven't checked any of the rest. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Some of them carried over, mostly the guns and draught rounding. All done, and thanks for the through review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The article body says the ships were decommissioned in 1909 and scrapped "the following year" but the infobox says they were in commission until 1913? 'Built' dates also seem wrong in infobox? Cavie78 (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Good eyes. Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)