# Talk:Feth-i Bülend-class ironclad

This review is transcluded from Talk:Feth-i Bülend-class ironclad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 13:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 4 May 2017 (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: 

Design:
"limited by the Ottoman Empire's limited finances" - can we rephrase one of the limiteds here?
Good catch - sometimes I rewrite things too many times and forget to read through to catch stuff like that.
Characteristics:
Any reason you didn't convert the 222 mm and 150 mm measurements in the last paragraph?
They're already converted earlier in the paragraph
Modifications:
I assume that "9 kn" is 9 knots?
Yeah - I'll remove the abbreviation, as we aren't gaining much by leaving 3 letters off
Service history:
"were laid up in Constantinople" do we have an article that we can link to to explain "laid up" for non-nautical people?
I usually link to wikt:laid up, but forgot here - how does that work for you?
"she was disarmed to strengthen the defenses of the port" I think I understand what this means, but probably needs explaining in case of non-nautical readers.
See if how I reworded adds some clarity.
I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: - I think I've addressed everything you've mentioned. Thanks for reviewing the article, it's always helpful to have a non-nautical person shed some light on what I'm missing. Parsecboy (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. Passing this now. Sorry for the delay - hubby's "weekend" is Monday and Tuesday and we're usually pretty busy those days. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)