# Talk:HMS Andromeda (1897)

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Andromeda (1897)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 14:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"The the first "
Sigh.
"Their complement" -this a formal term I gather?
Complement and crew are pretty much synonymous.
"later that month to Portsmouth Dockyard for completion. Upon completion on 5 September 1899," -rep of completion
Agreed.
"4 March 1902,[11] and from 11 June that year Andromeda served as flagship to Rear-Admiral Sir Baldwin Wake Walker, commander of the Cruiser Division of the Mediterranean Fleet.[12] In May 1902" -probably don't need to repeat "1902"
Indeed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
B. MoS compliance: 
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The SFN is complete and is better for readers.  I am aware of WP:CITEVAR and would not have gotten involved if I knew User:Sturmvogel 66 was involved.  For that inadvertence I apologize.  We've been over this before, and I would not needlessly tilt at windmills.  Nevertheless, it is better for readers.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I could agree with you if the article were bigger, but why bother on a short one like this?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes.  Except it has been done.  Already.  The time and effort wasted was mine.  I made no demand that you actually do any more work than you already have.  So it wasn't like I just inserted a changed format and rendered the rest of it in conflict. (And it is a "Good article" as User:Dr Blofeld has attested.)
So what is wrong with the format?  And how was the other better?  WP:I just don't like it is not an answer.
As I have said, I screwed up as I just wasn't thinking about you as a contributor.  I should have been more aware.  While you and I know you don't own the article (and I am not saying you have staked that claim), I know you have your preferences, and I respect that.
But the work has been done, so the issue is whether the readers are better with the present version or this version that you decided was better.  Why throw that effort away?  Is there a good reason?  7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Have added a little note on this. Hope is OK. The little note  in Balbi, C. M. R. "Electrical engineering in the Royal Navy." Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers 7.76 (1961): 225-226.  seemed most reliable... but there seem to be various spellings of Craufurd's name (Torpedo Lieutenant RN in https://digital-library.theiet.org/content/journals/10.1049/jiee-3.1961.0116 ) in other sources..Thought I would raise here as is good article and some might want better formatted refs and I don't want to spoil thing. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC))