Talk:SMS Hay (1860)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 15:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 14:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article that seems at first glance to be well-written and researched and close to meeting the Good article criteria already. I look forward to starting a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Overall, the standard of the article is good.
• It is of reasonable length, with 1,001 words of readable prose.
• The lead is significant with a length of 135 words.
• Authorship is 100% from the nominator.
• It is currently assessed as a Start class article, although Rater predicts a B or higher.
• Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT to the image for accessibility.

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • I only saw a small grammar correction needed, which I have fixed, as well as one of the wikilinks.
   • Otherwise, I can see no grammar or spelling errors.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • It seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included; the sources listed have all the information needed.
   • Is there a reason that the citations are author and page rather than author, date and page?

   • That's the format I've always used

   • Interesting.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • Spot checks confirm Hildebrand, Röhr, & Steinmetz 1993 and Lyon 1979. AGF for offline resources that I do not have access to.

   it contains no original research;

   • All relevant statements have inline citations.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 2% chance of copyright violation, which is reported as "violation unlikely". The highest correlation is Conway's and is not significant,

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • The article covers the main aspects of the vessel's specification and service.
   • There may be more information on page 33 of Hildebrand, Röhr, & Steinmetz 1993. Is there anything worth including?

   • I'm not sure what you're seeing online, but page 33 of Vol. 4 is about Grille, a ship from the 1930s.

   • That is confusing. Please look at Vol. 2[1]. I am not sure if this is duplicating what you already have but there seem to be mentions of Hay on a number of pages.

   • Hildebrand et. al. is a 10-volume set, and that link appears to be pulling from all of them, somehow. Each ship is covered in a short chapter, and Hay's is in Vol. 4. Those all appear to be referencing Hay as a sister ship to other vessels in the class - in the preview I see, the top hit looks to be the chapter for Sperber (from Vol. 7), the middle one is Wespe (Vol. 8), and the bottom one is referencing a replacement for the gunboat SMS Hay (1881) (which was the tender SMS Delphin (1906) [except not the one that redirect takes you to] in Vol. 2).

   • That makes sense. How confusing. Thank you for looking into this.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The article looks compliant.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The article seems generally balanced, using both German and English sources.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • The image has appropriate PD tags.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • The image is appropriate.

@Parsecboy: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article, @Simongraham: Parsecboy (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: A pleasure. And thank you for taking on Harpy. simongraham (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: Excellent work. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article. Please consider adding this, and your other articles, to the Military history contest.

Pass simongraham (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.