Talk:SMS Nix

SMS Nix has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

SMS Nix is part of the Avisos of Germany series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 3, 2019	Good article nominee	Listed
January 28, 2021	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Military history: Maritime / European / German

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Nix/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 03:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a gander at this one shortly. Zawed (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I guess I need to get to writing so you guys can stop fighting over reviews ;) Parsecboy (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I'd have sworn that I started the review on these, but obviously not. I was really tired last night, so I can blame fatigue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Sturm, I beat you to claiming this one. Anyway, this is a pretty trim and tidy article with few issues. My comments:

In the lead: "Dissatisfied with the numerous accidents, the..". I think it would be better to say incidents, it seems strange to refer to boiler fires as accidents (I think of ships colliding and so forth as accidents).
Service history: the Danzig Bay: don't think the "the" should be there.
- Fixed - sometimes my mind gets stuck in German mode
Friedrich Wilhelm IV and Karl boarded the ship...: suggest for avoidance of doubt "Prince Karl".
- Done
they stopped in the Jade Bay: another one where the the doesn't sound right here.
- Fixed
References: Heathcote needs a location, and it is my understanding we don't need company details as part of the publisher's name, i.e. the Ltd does need to be part of the name.
- Good catch
Images look to be appropriately tagged.
No dupe links, no dabs
One of the Cats is Ships built in Millwall, but it was built in Prussia?
- No, Danzig was built in Prussia - it was originally to have been built at Millwall, but Adalbert wanted to build it in Prussia to gain experience for the shipbuilding industry - he ordered the two Nixes from Millwall as part of the deal to get their help building Danzig
  - Ah, I didn't quite parse that sentence correctly, I understand now. Zawed (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zawed. Parsecboy (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked the lead as it seems my comment on this was overlooked. I am satisfied that this article meets the GA criteria. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed