# Talk:HMS Gorgon (1914)

I suspect that the ship pictured in the article is in fact not the HMS Gorgon. From what I can tell, she has too few turrets, too small a superstructure, and she sits to low in the water to be the Gorgon. Compare the image with the one on this site:
http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/monitors.htm
Also, compare with the model of her sister, Glatton/Bjørgvin
http://www.mil.no/start/aktuelt/nyheter/article.jhtml?articleID=95479

A correct image of the ship can be seen here: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_6-49_mk18.htm

According to this article "Gordon" was the name given to the Norwegian coastal defense ship "Nidaros", after they seized it in construction at the outbreak of WWI. Easily mixed with "Gorgon", I guess. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.1.144.84 (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Gorgon (1914)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jhbuk (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
{{subst:#if:|{{{overcom}}}|}}
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
Intro: "the British Royal Navy requisitioned most warships [that were] under construction in Britain for foreign powers and refunded >the< two thirds of the £370,000 purchase price that had already been paid by the Norwegians."
Remove >the<
(I think adding [that were] would be beneficial here.)
Done
Link to Royal Navy
(Construction: "work was resumed to[on] a new design")
Done
b (MoS):
Possible renaming of headings: Design and Construction/Service History
Modified
Perhaps a few more internal links could be beneficial. Anti-torpedo bulge for example.
Added
Wrong link to "Yarrow"
Fixed
{{subst:#if:|{{{1com}}}|}}
2.It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references):
I would like to see more than five references ("Ships of the Royal Navy" probably does not supply sufficient information for anywhere but the infobox), as well as having more citations which are formatted under "References".  However, the main reference appears to be very reliable.
Most books that even mention this ship are only going to have a brief citation of limited utility. Even Conway's entry isn't particularly useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The article is clearly well written and generally at the GA standard, but I am unsure about the number of references.  Most of the article relies on one source and, although it appears reliable, and is suitably cited, I'm not sure about what the correct policy is regarding this, or whether this is sufficient.
Read the criteria; there's nothing there about number of sources or references. Main thing that matters is that everything is cited by a RS and that it is reasonably complete.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes; there isn't any particular reason to question the accuracy of the article, as the main source seems good.  It's just that other GAs have a large number of different references.  I haven't had a look at the actual book, but I have heard of it and seen it elsewhere. Does it contain a bibliography/notes and references which may be useful for future reference? Jhbuk (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It's nicely cited, but most of its sources are achival.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
b (citations to reliable sources): and #:c (OR):
Refs used are reliabe. Existing citations are well placed and there are no obvious grey areas.
{{subst:#if:|{{{2com}}}|}}
3.It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects):
Good; sufficient description of design and service history and plenty of information in the infobox. Overall article is not particularly long, but sufficient.
b (focused):
No unnecessary digressions.
{{subst:#if:|{{{3com}}}|}}
4.It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:
Good
{{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}
5.It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:
Good
{{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}
6.It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Good; only one, but it's good and I don't think any more available ones would be beneficial.  No caption, but there is little to say that's particularly important about the picture other than it being of the ship.  (Possibly an approximate date, but I don't think it would be much of an improvement.)
{{subst:#if:|{{{6com}}}|}}
7.Overall: The article is well written, and goes into a good level of detail about the major aspects of the ship's history and design, with a substantial infobox.  I think the main problems with the article are due to the obvious lack of sources about the ship, and as a result of this, it seems unlikely that the article will progress substantially in the near future.  However, as I mentioned, the references used are well cited and seem reliable, and the image used clearly illustrates the ship.  

 Pass
{{subst:#if:|{{{7com}}}|}}