Talk:HMS Dominion

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Dominion (1903). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060222074923/http://www.pbenyon1.plus.com/Janes_1919/B_Ships/King_Edward_Cl_69.html to http://www.pbenyon1.plus.com/Janes_1919/B_Ships/King_Edward_Cl_69.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Dominion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 17:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing this one. —Ed!^(talk) 17:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Dab links, dup links and external links show no major problems. Copyvio detector returns

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass Offline references accepted in good faith. Cursory check of Google Books shows references that back up source material here.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Not Yet

   • Unit cost preferred as always, though understanding that's not common to find.

   • See my comment on the Commonwealth GAN

   • "During sweeps by the fleet, she and her sisters often steamed at the heads of divisions of the far more valuable dreadnoughts," -- One this one (and maybe the others) it might be helpful to explain, in a footnote at least, why this was the case? The ships are about 10 years old here but are already being treated as obsolete. Of course much to be said of the rapid advance in capital ship design at the time.

   • I've added a line to the Design section about the ship's rapid plunge into obsolescence

   • No first reference to Bradford again here.

   • Fixed

   • "Dominion paid off to serve as a parent ship for the Zeebrugge Raid and the first Ostend Raid." -- Explanation of a parent ship's role might make sense here.

   • Added a bit on this

   • Last graph mentions being paid off twice, with the link on the second reference, a bit confusing.

   • Moved the link and reworded the second one

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass Appropriate weight placed on a variety of sources.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass Three images tagged PD or CC where appropriate.

7. Other:

   On Hold Pending a few fixes. —Ed!^(talk) 18:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Pass My comments have been addressed to satisfaction. Well done! —Ed!^(talk) 00:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)