I haven't seen it anywhere: the sources Lyon 2005 and Gardiner 1979 only use the word "completed". Also Lyon 2005 is, I think, the most recent and fullest source for this type of ship, and it uses "completed" for all ships discussed – or rather I haven't seen "commissioned" anywhere. With specific reference to this ship it may not be surprising, since Lyon 2005 notes (p. 80) that it is not known when the ship was ordered or when it was specified to be delivered. Nortonius (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
development of that for HMS Star? A short context on the developments made
The source (Lyon 2005, p. 80) says only that this ship was "practically a repeat of the Star class": beyond differences in dimensions, I do not have any sources that clarify what other differences there may have been. Even mentioning differences in dimensions would, I think, be WP:SYNTHESIS, since no source specifies them explicitly: only the dimensions for each ship, which are different. I only included this as a pointer for the reader and would rather delete it than expand it. What do you think? On further investigation I think I've got this covered now using points I'd missed or used elsewhere, what do you think? Nortonius (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Units must be in full on their first mention, 220 ft (67.1 m)
Oh, I've not encountered this requirement before. I'm happy to oblige and I've made related changes but would you mind pointing me to the relevant section of the MOS, for future reference? Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you know better the only link available for "fore-and-aft" is at Fore-and-aft rig, which is solely related to sailing vessels. The first dictionary I looked at has a suitable definition for this expression; but I could change it to something like "in line with the ship's longitudinal axis", if you prefer. Note that the only link available for "longitudinal axis" relates solely to aircraft. Such is Wikipedia ... Nortonius (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IHP per hour; mention IHP in full as it is the first mention
It is now: before 1948 (according to Pennant number, and I'm sure this detail would be WP:UNDUE in this article) it was "pendant number", and this is the form used in the relevant citation in this article of Manning 1961, p. 34. This ship only ever had a "pendant number". However, if you feel this might be pe(n)dantic I can change it. Nortonius (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From 10 July to 3 August 1900 -> From 10 July 1900 to 3 August 1900, per MOS:DATERANGE
I'm sorry, I don't understand: MOS:DATERANGE gives examples as "between specific dates in different months: They travelled June3 – August18, 1952;They travelled 3June – 18August 1952". In the present context I have used the form "from ... to ...", which I think is perfectly acceptable in preference to dashes. Nortonius (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comma (,) after
From 10 July to 3 August 1900
From 11 January 1901 to 24 February 1902
In February 1901
In 1905
In 1913
From August 1914
From June 1915
On 6 September 1916
Also check the similar instances which I might have missed, also in section 3
who later became a rear admiral and then a vice admiral -> later vice admiral, the former is redundant to the latter. The highest attained is enough
If you have time, might you explain the redundancy? I merely mean that I don't know that one couldn't become a vice admiral without first being a rear admiral, for example. But I accept that the highest attained is enough here, so done. Nortonius (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't see how MOS:DATEVAR requires this change, could you give me a specific quotation or pointer? In my own reading I am grateful when these things are made as clear as possible. For example, would you prefer something like "Later that year, on 23 October, ..."? Nortonius (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On Wednesday 5 August 1907
Done. There is reason to specify the day of the week here, as "the preceding Saturday" is mentioned in the associated footnote, so it helps the reader; but I don't think it's so important. Nortonius (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
her "Chief Artificer Engineer" was based; drop the quotes, make it general prose; her chief artificer engineer was based
I used scare quotes here because I had never seen this rank or title before, and there is no link for it; linking it as "chief artificerengineer" is possible, but perhaps a bit cumbersome and more to the point may be WP:SYNTHESIS. That is, I don't have a source that says this rank or title was for both a chief artificer and a chief engineer in one person. Nortonius (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Section 3;
place of coal: in July that year -> place of coal. In July,
I've made this two sentences as you suggest: I believe I kept it as one sentence because what is now the first makes an extraordinary claim, which I thought would require a citation. However, if you feel that the subject is adequately discussed and sourced thereafter then I'm happy with two sentences. I've kept "that year" to specify which "July", as we couldn't very well have 1904 in both sentences. Nortonius (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Section 4.2;
Lyon 2005, pp. 16; 112–3; 112–3?
Lyon 2005, pp. 15–6; 15–6?
Lyon 2005, pp. 24–5; 24–5?
Why are these ranges in reverse? Some cases do exist in 4.3
This is a common format for page ranges in references, I'm not sure what you mean by "in reverse": for example "pp. 112–3" is "pages 112 to 113". Nortonius (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have checked this via dispenser.homenet.org: if you click on the link in the article you'll find it's not dead. Under "Analysis" dispenser.homenet.org reports "Changes domain and redirect to /", but again clicking the link in the article produces no such changes. This makes me doubt the efficiency of dispenser.homenet.org in this instance. Perhaps it is related to the fact that archive.org reports "Page cannot be displayed due to robots.txt." Otherwise, indeed, I would have archived it. Nortonius (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]