Talk:SMS Yorck/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Thurgate (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
prose: (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
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, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

1.She struck two German mines and capsized and sank with the loss of heavy loss of life. Needs to be re-written as it doesn't flow. Suggest, She struck two German mines and capsized and sank with a heavy loss of life.

Fixed - I rewrote half of the sentence and forgot to make sure it matched the first half. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Citation twelve's date is in the wrong place.

Nope, it's right. I added the {{cite news}} and it kept it in the same order. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. She was laid down in 1903 at the Blohm & Voss shipyard in Hamburg, and finished in November 1905, at the cost of 16,241,000 Marks. She displaced up to 9,875 tonnes (9,719 LT; 10,885 ST) and was armed with a main battery of four 21 cm (8.3 in) guns. Her top speed was 20.4 kn (37.8 km/h; 23.5 mph). Suggest moving this to Construction under a sub-heading of General characteristics.

The lead section should summarize the entire article per WP:LEAD, and since there is a section with technical information, there should be at least a sentence on the main technical info (size, speed, guns) in the intro. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I just haven't seen the lead section with so much technical detail before.

No worries, not everyone writes articles the same exact way, so there is a bit of flexibility. Parsecboy (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow you to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns. Thurgate (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article, Thurgate. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passed Thurgate (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]