Jump to content

Talk:SMS Wien/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 02:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

This is a very comprehensive article on a fairly obscure ship - great work. I have the following comments and suggestions:

  • "one of three Monarch-class coastal defense ship" - the 's' at the end is missing
    • Good catch.
  • "Wien and the two other Monarch-class ships made several training cruises in the Mediterranean Sea. Wien and her sisters formed " - these two sentences have basically the same first words, and can rough dates be provided for the training cruises? (eg, during the early 1900s...)
    • Good idea.
  • "and only recommissioned during the annual summer training exercises" - would 'for annual summer training exercises' work better here?
    • Yes.
  • "Wien and her sister Budapest were sent to Trieste in August" - probably best to include the year here
    • Indeed.
  • "was officially designated as coast defense ships" - bit awkward
  • "The Austro-Hungarian government believed that the role of her navy" - 'its navy' or similar would work better
    • Yes.
  • Was the International Fleet Review in 1897?
    • Spelled out.
  • A map of the Adriatic might be a good idea given that few readers will be familiar with the port towns in the region referred to in the article (suggestion only)
    • Good idea. Add one that covers the upper Adriatic with contemporary place names.
  • Was the bombardment of Cortellazzo related to the Battle of Caporetto? The timing is right.
    • Yes, but I'm not exactly sure how since I'm not really sure where the battlefront was when it happened or even where Castellazzo is.
  • "before a more coordinated attack was made by five MAS torpedo boats and five aircraft was made" - repetition of 'was made'
    • Deleted.
  • File:Monarch-class.jpg should be PD, but is its actual source known? Nick-D (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Nick-D (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]