Talk:Beograd-class destroyer/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 09:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Will come back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk mail) 09:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Section 1; para 1; What is "KSCS"? If it is "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes", mention the term in parenthesis following that.
• Section 1; para 1; It is better to mention what is "Dubrovnik"? A destroyer or frigate etc.
• Section 1; para 2; The term "KJRM" was used, but was never mentioned in the previous para.
• Section 2; para 1; The sentence The crew consisted of "145 officers and enlisted men", I suggest rewording it to The crew consisted of "145 personnel including officers and enlisted men", because sometimes a reader may get a meaning that it's crew had 145 officers, and besides these officers, there were also some enlisted men. If possible you may reword it better to avoid the confusion.
• Section 3; para 2; Provide the translation of "Kriegsmarine", and also wiki-link it.
• Section 3; para 2; "to the two officers that scuttled Zagreb", I think "that" is to be replaced by "who". The same suggestion follows for the last sentence in lead.
• Lead; It is mentioned that "Zagreb was scuttled to prevent its capture", but this is never mentioned in the prose, and is therefore uncited. Please check this.

@Peacemaker67: Almost the article is flawless besides a few errors. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk mail) 09:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, Krishna. All addressed, these are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Any thoughts on under which country's warships this is to be listed? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Yugoslavia. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

---

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)