Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Philip and Son"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Rosiestep (re) |
imported>Manxruler (All good.) |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
:*Added an img.--'''[[User talk:Nvvchar|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#003366">Nvvchar</span>]]'''. 23:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC) | :*Added an img.--'''[[User talk:Nvvchar|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#003366">Nvvchar</span>]]'''. 23:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
''Reviewed'' [[Levant Battery]] | ''Reviewed'' [[Levant Battery]] | ||
| − | :'''Review''': [[File:Symbol | + | :'''Review''': [[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] |
*'''Article''': Date is good (seems to me to have been created on 4 November, not 3 November, but that might be due to different time zones and such), long enough by far, neutral, cites sources (not for one claim, but I found the info in one of the cited sources. and added it to the correct place), found no copyvio in the sources available online and did agf on the books. | *'''Article''': Date is good (seems to me to have been created on 4 November, not 3 November, but that might be due to different time zones and such), long enough by far, neutral, cites sources (not for one claim, but I found the info in one of the cited sources. and added it to the correct place), found no copyvio in the sources available online and did agf on the books. | ||
:''However'', with regards to the list of ships built at the yard, the cited source does not support all the vessels listed. Specifically, HMAS ''Teal'', HMS ''Everingham'', ''Le Batofar'', Lightvessel No. 11, MV ''Royal Iris of the Mersey'' and MV ''Snowdrop'' are not in the cited source. This needs to be rectified. Philip and Son might be listed as the building shipyard in the individual ship articles, but this article needs a citation for the fact that the vessels were built by Philip and Son. | :''However'', with regards to the list of ships built at the yard, the cited source does not support all the vessels listed. Specifically, HMAS ''Teal'', HMS ''Everingham'', ''Le Batofar'', Lightvessel No. 11, MV ''Royal Iris of the Mersey'' and MV ''Snowdrop'' are not in the cited source. This needs to be rectified. Philip and Son might be listed as the building shipyard in the individual ship articles, but this article needs a citation for the fact that the vessels were built by Philip and Son. | ||
:*I've removed mention of HMAS ''Teal'', HMS ''Everingham'', ''Le Batofar'', Lightvessel No. 11, MV ''Royal Iris of the Mersey'' and MV ''Snowdrop''. --[[User:Rosiestep|Rosiestep]] ([[User talk:Rosiestep|talk]]) 03:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC) | :*I've removed mention of HMAS ''Teal'', HMS ''Everingham'', ''Le Batofar'', Lightvessel No. 11, MV ''Royal Iris of the Mersey'' and MV ''Snowdrop''. --[[User:Rosiestep|Rosiestep]] ([[User talk:Rosiestep|talk]]) 03:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::*Then we're good to go. Nice work on this interesting article. [[User:Manxruler|Manxruler]] ([[User talk:Manxruler|talk]]) 10:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
*'''Hook''': Short enough, interesting (at least for those of us who like ships, and I think that's quite a few), cited, accurate, neutral and no blp concerns. | *'''Hook''': Short enough, interesting (at least for those of us who like ships, and I think that's quite a few), cited, accurate, neutral and no blp concerns. | ||
*'''Other''': QPQ done (although I really would have liked a direct link to the review, rather than to the reviewed article), although I know that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_83#Old_issue_on_reviewing_-_specifics_about_what_points_are_checked nowadays we're encouraged to explain our reviews in more detail] than what is the case with the review of Levant Battery. The image is free, used in the article and looks nice and interesting to me. [[User:Manxruler|Manxruler]] ([[User talk:Manxruler|talk]]) 01:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC) | *'''Other''': QPQ done (although I really would have liked a direct link to the review, rather than to the reviewed article), although I know that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_83#Old_issue_on_reviewing_-_specifics_about_what_points_are_checked nowadays we're encouraged to explain our reviews in more detail] than what is the case with the review of Levant Battery. The image is free, used in the article and looks nice and interesting to me. [[User:Manxruler|Manxruler]] ([[User talk:Manxruler|talk]]) 01:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | }}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | ||
Revision as of 10:08, 9 November 2012
Philip and Son
- ... that Philip and Son was Dartmouth's last industrial shipyard (pictured)?
Created/expanded by Rosiestep (talk), Nvvchar (talk), Dr. Blofeld (talk). Nominated by Rosiestep (talk) at 05:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Added an img.--Nvvchar. 23:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Reviewed Levant Battery
- Article: Date is good (seems to me to have been created on 4 November, not 3 November, but that might be due to different time zones and such), long enough by far, neutral, cites sources (not for one claim, but I found the info in one of the cited sources. and added it to the correct place), found no copyvio in the sources available online and did agf on the books.
- However, with regards to the list of ships built at the yard, the cited source does not support all the vessels listed. Specifically, HMAS Teal, HMS Everingham, Le Batofar, Lightvessel No. 11, MV Royal Iris of the Mersey and MV Snowdrop are not in the cited source. This needs to be rectified. Philip and Son might be listed as the building shipyard in the individual ship articles, but this article needs a citation for the fact that the vessels were built by Philip and Son.
- Hook: Short enough, interesting (at least for those of us who like ships, and I think that's quite a few), cited, accurate, neutral and no blp concerns.
- Other: QPQ done (although I really would have liked a direct link to the review, rather than to the reviewed article), although I know that nowadays we're encouraged to explain our reviews in more detail than what is the case with the review of Levant Battery. The image is free, used in the article and looks nice and interesting to me. Manxruler (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
