# Talk:HMS Thames (1885)

Sources differ about the launch date - I've seen 1884, 1885 and 1890  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 

Colledge has 1885, backed up by Jane's.  Seems definitive.  Benea 01:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Thames (1885)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 02:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Will come back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Section 1; para 1; sentence 1; "with more armour" may revised as "with better armour"
The armour was thicker and there was more of it, so I think that "more" is OK.
Section 1; para 1; consistency error; In the para maximum speed is mentioned as "18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)" and in the infobox it is "17 kn (31 km/h; 20 mph)". The same error with the ranges also, "8,750 nautical miles (16,200 km; 10,070 mi) at a speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)" in prose, and "3,500 nmi (6,500 km; 4,000 mi) at 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)" in infobox.
Good catch.
Section 2; Who is "Hon. Mrs. Algernon Littleton"? Please mention something about her capacity (if available).
My source comments that even he hasn't been able to figure out who she was. My best guess is the wife of some aristocratic byblow.
Section 2.1; para 1; Please mention the namesake of the ship. I think it is for Louis Botha, a South African general and later Prime Minister of SA, and also add the same to infobox.
Good idea for the main body, already in the infobox.
Section 2.1; para 1; "where they arrived two days later", "they"? It is only one ship right? Please revise this.
Section 2.1; para 2; sentence 1; "He donated it to a trust", who is "he"? Because just in prior sentence, Minister of Defence was mentioned. It creates some confusion whether he donated or the owner.
Indeed.
Section 2.1; para 2; "The Board of Control offered the ship to the RN", which "Board of Control"? Please mention.
@Sturmvogel 66: Nice work. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
All done. Thanks for your thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)