Talk:SMS Nautilus (1906)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 21:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citations: the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required)
Disambiguations: no dabs - [3] (no action req'd)
Linkrot: No dead links - [4] (no action req'd).
Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it - [5] (no action req'd, not part of the GA criteria / suggestion only)
Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed (no action req'd).

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
- Is there a typo here: "hull was launched as Nautilus on 20 August 1906." In the infobox it says launched on 28 August.
  - The 28th is correct, good catch.
- "... both five miles long..." perhaps use the {{convert}} template here?
  - Good idea.
- Slightly repetitive prose here: "...Following the disbanding of the unit the following..." (following x 2 in close proximity - perhaps reword one?)
  - Changed the second one to "next".
- I made a few edits [7].
  - All look fine to me.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- No issues. Article is well referenced and looks to reflect the sources available on this vessel.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
- All major aspects seem to be covered.
- Article is focused and doesn't go into unnecessary detail.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- No issues.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
- Images are appropriate for article and appear to be PD / free and have the req'd documentation.
- Captions look ok.

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:
- This looks good to me, only a couple of fairly minor prose points above to address /discuss. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - No worries, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]