Talk:SMS Hela/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
The specifics of her armament are best saved for the armament paragraph, not the lead. Add the ship class infobox even if she's the sole example of her class. As with the SMS Worth article, the Boxer Rebellion section needs work.
I added some stuff to the Boxer section, let me know if that helps. I added class box.
Much better description of the Rebellion, but don't forget my comment about the armament in the lead.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix that in a second.

B. MoS compliance:
As usual watch the hyphen for gun sizes.
I was told here that hyphens don't go with abbreviated units (so 8.8-centimeter, but not 8.8-cm).
I want to see that in writing as I don't believe he's correct, strictly from a consistency POV.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at MOS:HYPHEN in the bottom of #3.
OK, I see it, but I don't understand why the presence of an abbreviation makes a difference. But thanks for looking it up for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Titles and page numbers are needed for magazine and newspaper articles. Some books and magazines need place of publication.
This has been fixed as much as I can.
OCLC should have place of publication of all remaining books that need it. I'm willing to be that Praeger is in NYC and the RUSI Journal is in London.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, RUSI is in London. I think I've got all of the locations now. Parsecboy (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Why was she built? Some context would be useful. What kind of boilers would be useful.
Added.
Good work here. But you might want to add your usual note about the gun nomenclature.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will do.

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:
A plan view drawing would be useful to show the arrangement of the armament.
Neither Conway's 1860-1905 or Groner's have good line-drawings, both are from the side only, which doesn't help all that much with armament arrangement.
Check for editions of Jane's Fighting Ships and Brassey's that are online and out of copyright. Try Google books and Gutenberg.org as I have scans of several of the latter.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can dig up anything there.
The 1914 Janes isn't previewable. I did track down the 1900 edition, but all it has on Hela is this, which isn't all that useful. Parsecboy (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the three issues of Brassey's that I have on hand and there's no drawing of Hela therein. Oh, well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend has a copy of a reprint of the 1914 Jane's, and it has side and top view line-drawings of the ship. He's trying to establish the copyright status in the UK before uploading it. Either way, it'll come up eventually, it just depends on whether it'll be on Commons or here on en.wiki. See here for the discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Please build a navbox for this article. It would make looking up other German ships much easier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Parsecboy (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]