Talk:SMS Oldenburg (1884)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Starstriker7 - public^(talk) 04:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll take on this review. --Starstriker7 - public^(talk) 04:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Criterion 1

Lead

• "service with the Germany Navy." - Fix the Germany part.
• Can you wikilink "sortie corvette"?
  • Fixed "Germany" - for sortie corvette, it's a unique ship type - the Sachsens were the only ships designated as such (at least in the German Navy) so a link to sortie corvette would more or less necessarily redirect back to Sachsen class ironclad (much the same as pocket battleship redirects to Deutschland class cruiser). Parsecboy (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Design

General characteristics

• "Oldenburg was the first German capital ships built entirely from German-made steel." - Is this worth a mention in the lead?
• Can you wikilink "picket boat"?
  • Added the first, but no links for picket boat (and patrol boat isn't quite the same thing). Parsecboy (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Armament and armor

• "the steel was fabricated by the Dillinger works" - Capitalize "Works"?
• Wikilink "I Division".
  • Capitalized, but as for the link, see the Baden review. Parsecboy (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Service history

• "In 1892, however,Württemberg replaced Oldenburg in the I Division" - I assume it went to the II Division? If so, can you add that?
• Why did Germany and Austria-Hungary withdraw their naval contingents?
• Can you wikilink "harbor guard ship", "depot ship", and "Hattinger Company"?
  • Nope, the ship went into reserve (I've tweaked it to make that clearer). They were frustrated by the settlement of the dispute between Greece and the Ottomans, so they left in protest. Links to guard ship and depot ship added, but there's nothing for Hattinger Company. Parsecboy (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Criterion 2

Referencing criteria have been met.

Criterion 3

The article is broad with relation to its GA peers, and is sufficiently focused (with the exception of a few comments listed in Criterion 1).

Criterion 4

The article has a neutral tone.

Criterion 5

The article's revision history indicates that the article is stable.

Criterion 6

Both images have documented copyright statuses. Captions are relevant.

Overall comments

As always, just a few little things to address. Nice work, Parsecboy. :) --Starstriker7 - public^(talk) 04:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you're all set. I'll pass the article in a sec. --Starstriker7 - public^(talk) 00:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)