Talk:SMS Nix/GA1

GA Review

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

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