Talk:SMS Habsburg/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
There are still a few typos; do a light copyedit. Rework the lead; there are a few run-on sentences.

I'll try and fix the run-ons in each of them, and will submit it to the Guild of copyeditors (I can't spell properly that much)

Done.

B. MoS compliance:
References need place of publication and articles need author, title, etc. of the actual article itself.

Think it's all done. Buggie111 (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
One missing citation.

Meaning a ref is not cited, or a statement is not cited?

I've fixed that. It was Gardiner and Gray (1984), p. 330 and did exist in an earlier version of the article. I must have removed it when I expanded this article. Sorry about that :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Check Brassey's or Jane's for more information on peacetime operations.

I don't have Brassesy's and it's not covered in Jane's. I'll ask at WT:OMT if anyone can do so.
Just to note, there are several editions of Brasseys available for viewing on Google Books. Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a suggestion to try and fill out the ship's history. It won't affect this GAR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This ship (along with the others in her class) litterally did nothing until WWI exept rot away in port and go out on one menuver and patrol. There was'nt much to say about her (or the others) I can try to find something though if you need me to...--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Done I've completed a copyedit of this article as requested by Buggie111. I fixed a few minor typos and rearranged some sentences for better flow. I don't know a lot about boats/ships, but it reads OK. NielsenGW (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done All refs are in place and fixed up as well.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 10:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked one awkward spot where the propeller shafts should be broken out from the sentence discussing the engines. Still need the magazine article titles, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

The references cited in footnotes 4, 7, and 9 are incomplete. I presume that they refer to magazines (is that the Naval Institute Proceedings?), in which case they will need volume or issue number as well as year of publication. PKKloeppel (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad if note 9 is referenced by Sundries; I didn't see that it was from the United Service Magazine. The Naval Institute notes remain, however. And it would be better to give the author's name in the notes, so that others don't make the same mistake that I did. PKKloeppel (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Buggie111 (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do the same for the Naval Institute references, please.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Buggie111 (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that it Strumvogel? All three articles have been copyedited and their ref's fixed up. If there's anything missing just let me or Buggie know.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, refs 4 and 7, need article title, author, and volume or issue number. The latest change confuses the Office of Naval Intelligence with the US Naval Institute. Please straighten this out or delete the fact/statement that they're cited in support of.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got your point. That ref was deleted in an earlier version. Moving on to fixing it. Buggie111 (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. I'm going to bed now but if Buggie has not fixed those issues bt morning (11:00 London Time) I'll try to get to it.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 02:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, meaning removed the facts. Buggie111 (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up the problem with #6 and we'll be done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. I got that done. Buggie111 (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take it it's done. Buggie111 (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]