# Talk:Reşadiye-class battleship

To tell the truth I don't think that this article meets criteria 2. It says almost nothing about its activities during the war other than Jutland. Furthermore it's very weakly sourced, nothing from Parkes or Burt.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have either, and my very helpful Garzke and Duilan just laugh and tell about Jutland along with two refits during the war. Their one of two refs I have on it, the othr being hore. Buggie111 (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I've nipped the last info from Conways. PLease comment. Buggie111 (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Reşadiye-class battleship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) 22:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. 
The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. 
Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
No categories!
Whoops, forgot to restore the old categories when I moved the draft out of my sandbox. Parsecboy (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Slight question - is the Douglas Gamble mentioned Douglas Gamble?
Certainly seems that way, though the timeline doesn't seem to line up - he was the commander of the 6th CS by 1911, but perhaps the Ottomans contacted him since they knew him. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 

Given only the HMS Erin was ever completed, does it make sense to have this as a separate article from the HMS Erin page? 22 Jan 2016.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.95.126.175 (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC) 

Yes, for two reasons. The first, cancelled ship classes routinely have articles, and second, much of the context for the ordering of these two ships (and particularly Fatih Sultan Mehmed) is beyond the scope of the HMS Erin article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The beam given in feet is 28'10" or 8.79m, which is clearly incorrect for a ship that is 160m long. 
The article states that the ship was wider in the beam than Iron Duke whose beam is given as 90' or 27.4m. My guess is that Erin's beam measurement was actually not 28'10" but 28.1m, which would make the statement re Iron Duke accurate, and would make more sense. 
I do not however have a cite to any article that says her beam was 28.x metres. Does anyone have a source to correct this? Tirailleur (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Her beam was 27.9 meters, according to Conways.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I can check L&G later today - I’d assume I just fat-fingered it. Parsecboy (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
L&G has the same figure. It looks like the 27.4m figure was for a variant for Fatih, per Conway’s. Parsecboy (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Quick work - well done all.Tirailleur (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)