Talk:HMS Pomone (1897)

HMS Pomone (1897) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 2, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Pomone (1897)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CrowzRSA 23:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These "Third class" cruisers were designed I'm not sure, but shouldn't "Third" be in lowercase?
- Indeed. Fixed.
There is inconsistency between spelling out single digit numbers and using numerals for single digit numbers.
- The conversion template doesn't allow for numbers to be spelled out. Plus I'm using numerals for all hyphenated measurements like 4-inch.
The lead should be expanded.
- Again, not much to work with here. What else do you think can be added?

That's all I see. I'm putting the article on hold for a week. CrowzRSA 01:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]