# Talk:Powerful-class cruiser

What an astonishing mess this article (and particularly the tables) are. I have moved data that belongs to the individual ships to where they belong in the ship articles, but retained the cost comparison and the comparative performance table. If the BNA revised it's costs downwards in 1906 then presumably they had reason to do so and we should accept those costs - but I retained the note.--Geronimo20 (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The only reason for your criticism is that the article contains astonishingly little text.  However if you want delete something, why not delete all the paragraphs that lack citations - only that would only leave the bits you deleted. 
It is useful for articles to have standardised tables on build programmes for ship classes.  It is also useful to have trials data for the classes, to enable people to compare designs.  As for Brassey's revision of all their cost data for British warships - it is useful to have both sets of data - the reason being that for some ships only the earlier data is available.  It is not a question of accepting or not accepting the data - they evidently used different rules for what costs were included and what not included, and we have no idea what the difference in the counting rules.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Powerful-class cruiser/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 20:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll take this one. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Mostly nitpicks:

"...required, meant..." a "which" is needed there.
I dunno, I think that the dependent clause before the comma obviates the need for "which"
Cut out a lot of the text and you get "White's studies [led to conclusion 'X'], meant that a very large ship was necessary..." "Which" is necessary for the sentence to work correctly. Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Is it "criticized" or "criticised?" I know BrEng tends to use an "s" instead of a "z", but some of these are irregular too, IIRC
I'll change it to an "s", but I'm not sure either as my online dictionary doesn't specify which is which.
"the largest crew in the RN" - best to specify that it was the largest at that time.
Ditto for the coal bunkers
"The ships generally used Harvey armour." - the obvious question is, what wasn't Harvey armor?
Burt contradicted himself in the article, so I tried to weasel-word my way out of specifying which one were mild steel.
How were the 6-inch guns added in 1902-3 fed? Just with a supply of ready ammunition? Or were men supposed to ferry shells from the other magazines?
Not specified, but most likely the latter as I don't think that any of the six inch guns had their own ammo hoists.
File:Powerful class cruiser diagram Brasseys 1897.jpg - needs a US tag
The Jane's ref is not cited (and has a harv error).
Deleted.
Parsecboy (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Lemme know if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Alright, everything seems to be in order, happy to promote. Parsecboy (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)