Talk:SMS Jagd/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dank (talk · contribs) 17:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Review

• The toolbox checks out.
• "an aviso, of the Imperial German Navy": no comma
• "served in the Training Squadron in 1891, as a torpedo boat flotilla leader": no comma
• "form": from
• "used as a firing platform for torpedo training. She was used in this capacity until she was broken up for scrap": used as a firing platform for torpedo training until she was broken up for scrap
• Otherwise:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

   Thanks, Dan - you know, the comma overuse thing used to be a hallmark of my bad writing, but I thought I had kicked that particular habit long ago. Guess not as completely as I thought, at any rate. Parsecboy (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

   I've always felt a little uncomfortable in my role as reviewer; I know it's much easier for prose reviewers to see these things than for people who are trying to get everything else right, and I hope writers don't feel like I'm shaming them ... but I suspect that happens. I don't think you have anything to worry about with your writing. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Passed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)