Talk:SMS Jäger/GA1
GA Review
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 20:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 13:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I'll take this review. Comments to follow shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Source spotcheck
[edit]I am unable to access most of the sources. Since this is a fairly short article, could you please supply me with relevant quotations from three citations: Nottelmann, pp. 65–66, Gröner, p. 132, and Hildebrand, Röhr, & Steinmetz Vol. 5, p. 226 Parsecboy?
- I have a scan of Hildebrand et. al. - if you want to send me an email, I can forward that. I don't have Groner or Hildebrand handy at the moment, but I can provide them later. Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sent you an email. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
General comments
[edit]- Consider splitting the lead paragraph, and perhaps combining the sentences "She was armed with a battery of three guns. The ship saw limited time in service."—they are quite short and clunky.
- The lead is fairly short as it is, so I don't see a lot of benefit in splitting it (and I don't think merging those sentences make sense, since they aren't related topics)
- I had only previously heard "recommissioned/commissioned" being used in the passive voice — "he was recommissioned", "the painting was commissioned". Using it in the active voice ("Jäger next recommissioned") seems a bit odd. Are you sure it is grammatically correct?
- It's relatively common in the nautical context; for example, "HMS Dreadnought commissioned in 1960", "USS Enterprise, commissioned in 1961 was...", "when the battleship Bismarck commissioned", etc.
- " In poor condition by that time, Jäger was struck from the naval register in 1872 and then used as a target ship and later a coal storage hulk. The ship was eventually broken up in the early 1880s." consider instead ending the first sentence at 1872, and then saying something like "used first as ... and then as ..., the ship was ..." I think that flows better.
- Works for me
- Be careful of placing links next to each other (MOS:SOB), e.g. at "The Jäger-class gunboats" or "three-masted schooner rig".
- I changed the first one, but there's not a good alternative for the second (or at least that doesn't increase the wordiness). But 2 links next to each other isn't a hard and fast rule, so I think this one is ok.
- "As built, she was equipped with" not sure what precisely this is intended to mean.
- The sailing rig was later removed - clarified there
- Rest of the article is good. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing the article! Parsecboy (talk) 15:06, 15 October 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.