Talk:SMS Sperber/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 23:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll take this article for review, and should have my full comments up by later tonight. Dana boomer (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I'm sure you've checked the IP addition from April 5 to make sure everything is solid there?

Yeah, it's the standard note explaining SMS and the translation of the ship's name.

Lead, "but was thereafter used as a target ship until 1918. She was thereafter sold" - close repetition of "thereafter".

Changed the second one to "later"

Second deployment abroad, "presence was unnecessary there." I think the "there" is unnecessary.

Sounds fine to me.

Second deployment abroad, "German East Africa to replace Bussard there." Again, the "there" doesn't seem to be adding anything.

Removed.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Overall very solid, just a few minor comments on prose. Placing the article on hold until these can be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks yet again, I think everything should be corrected. Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And again everything looks good, so passing to GA. Dana boomer (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]