Talk:SMS Grosser Kurfürst (1913)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Progression

Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Initial comments

This is an impressive article and I believe that it is up to GA standard. However, prior to awarding this status I have the following comments/suggestions that I think should be considered (some of which I recognise are beyond the scope of the GA review, but which I think would help it at ACR or FAC. Apologies if this is an issue):

in some places I found the prose a little abrupt. This might be fixed by adding in linking clauses to a few paragraphs (e.g. "After this,..." "As such," etc), but this is only minor and not enough to hold up GA. I'd recommend asking Dank or another copyeditor to take a look prior to ACR, though, but over all it seems quite well written and easily makes the grade for GA, IMO;

Thanks, I'm sure Dank will get to the article at some point, there's no rush. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the Service history section, you mention "von Ingenohl" but don't seem to explain who this is on first mention - I think you just need to put a brief clause after the first mention;

Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the Battle of Jutland section, in the first sentence "battle of Jutland" - capitalisation is different. Elsewhere you treat it as a proper noun, so I think you should do so here;

Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the Battle of Jutland section, "David Beatty" could probably be wikilinked;

Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the Battle of Jutland section, this sentence seems a little out of place in the paragraph it is in: "The remaining shells burst on impact and caused relatively minor damage";

I'm not quite sure what to do with it, maybe Dank will have a better idea. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the Battle of Jutland section, you mention "Jellicoe" but don't seem to explain who he was;

Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the Battle of Jutland section, "and subsequently reached Horns Reef by 04:00 on 1 June,[38] Off Helgoland..." Should there be a full stop after 1 June? (not sure myself, sorry);

Dang typos... Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the Subsequent operations section, "On the 5th, a pair..." (per Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Dates the use of an ordinal suffix might be problematic) - I think there are a couple of examples of this in the article, e.g. in the Fate section;

I put them in because I seem to think at a recent FAC someone suggested I use them so I'm not repeating the month over and over when it should be clear through context. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the Fate section, what was the significance of hoisting a red flag?

They were socialists - I added a bit to that effect. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the final sentece of the Fate section, "unlike her sisters, she was ultimately raised on 29 April 1938 and sold for scrapping in Rosyth" - however in the lead it says that the ship was not raised and "the wreck is still sitting on the bottom of the bay". These seem at odds with each other;

Yeah, I wasn't looking at a book when I was writing the introduction, and forgot which of the four had been raised. Thanks for catching that. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the Footnotes subsection, you might consider adding citations for # 1 and 3, although it is not a major problem for me and I won't hold it against the review for GA;
in the Citations subsection, Citation # 1, "Hore" is cited, but does not appear to be listed in the References;

Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the Citations subsection, Citation # 3, "Campbell, John, "Germany 1906–1922", in Sturton, p. 36" - I think this should be presented more clearly in the References section as a chapter in an edited work;

Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the References section, one of the ISBNs (for the Campbell 1998 work) has hyphens but the others don't, I think it best if they all look consistent.

Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technical review

a (Disambiguations): b Linkrot c Alt text

1 dab link found by the tools: [3];

Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no issues with ext links
some images have alt text and some don't - you might want to consider adding it in, but it is not a GA requirement so won't be held against the review

Criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

All issues addressed satisfactorily.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

No issues.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

No issues.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

No issues.

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:

No issues that I can find.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':

No issues that I can find.

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Passes for GA. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]