Talk:Albion-class landing platform dock

Untitled

during those eighteen months the first amphibious assault carried out by British forces in over 20 years was mounted

It would be a good idea to say where that assault was!

I think it was the Al-Faw Peninsula in Iraq, oh and you need to sign your posts--Doctormonkey 16:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

specs source copyvio

The specs is a straight pull from the RN website - [1] - but it ought to be changed to convert military talk into encylopedia English anyway. GraemeLeggett 12:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

copy edit notes

According to the Royal Navy website, "HMS Albion, along with her sister ship HMS Bulwark, is one of the Navy’s two amphibious assault ships with a single aim: to deliver the punch of the Royal Marines ashore by air and by sea". That seems like something that might be worked into this article as well. Feel free to put back any copyedit changes that you don't feel are warranted, I won't be offended! If that doesn't make you happy, please send all flames directly to my talk page. --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 07:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not know until reading a little more on the navy website, that "extended readiness" meant docked, but not quite mothballed. At least, that's how I read it at [2]. That might be explained a little more too. --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 07:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Albion class landing platform dock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 01:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead should note that only one ship in the class is now active
• "their flight decks were used to support airborne operations by helicopters and Sea Harrier jets" - the flight decks did more than 'support' operations; they were used as a base for operations. I suggest using a more active word here.
• Can anything be said about how the ships fit into the British amphibious force? I presume that their role is to land the initial waves' heavy equipment during amphibious operations, while most troops are landed by Ocean?
• What's the non-overload troop complement of the ships?
• The lead says that the ships can carry "Thirty-one large trucks and thirty-six smaller vehicles and main battle tanks" while the body of the article states that they can carry "thirty-one large trucks and thirty-six smaller vehicles[3] or six Challenger 2 tanks and thirty armoured personnel carriers." These two figures seem inconsistent.
• The information about the ships' crew and troop complement would be best placed in the para about what they can carry rather than that about their engines
• The 'Extended readiness' section should probably note the critical response to this measure, and what it means for the British ampibious force (eg, for instance, that there will be considerable periods each year when no LPDs are available as the single active ship is undergoing maintenance and/or crew leave)
• Reference 9 (to '"Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty"') needs a page number. These running costs seem rather low - do they exclude crew costs?
• The quote marks around "extended readiness" in the 'HMS Albion' section are unnecessary
• I suggest establishing a category at commons for the ships and adding a link to it here.
• Are you sure that http://www.naval-technology.com/ is a reliable source? In my experiance it's mainly based on press releases from the manufacturers of weapons. I'd suggest consulting a copy of Jane's Fighting Ships or equivalent instead.
• Can anything be said about the ships' command and control facilities? These appear to be an important feature of the design.

Assessment against GA criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Nomination withdrawn Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Sorry Nick real life getting in the way I just don't have the time to follow this up. I was going to delete the nomination but forgot, Thanks for taking the time to review it. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries Jim. Should I fail the review, or leave it open for a while? Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Its probably best to fail, I hate to say. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, will do. Let me know if you'd like to reactivate the review though. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lpd/

  Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Albion-class landing platform dock. 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/20130102083033/http://navy-matters.beedall.com/albion.htm to http://navy-matters.beedall.com/albion.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523093626/http://navy-matters.beedall.com/ to http://navy-matters.beedall.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222022127/http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/%40dg/%40en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf to http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/%40dg/%40en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 05:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)