Talk:German battleship Scharnhorst/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll review this article over this weekend.

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is generally very good, but I have a few minor suggestions:

"she was laid down on 15 June 1935 and launched a year and four months later on 3 October 1936" - 'year and four months later' seems unnecessary seeing as you're providing the exact dates of these events as well
"longest-range naval gunfire hits" is a bit awkward and isn't cited in the body of the article (though it is correct)
Scharnhorst was engaged and sunk by the heavy covering force which was supporting Convoy JW 55B and ships from the Convoy's escort, not "British naval patrols" (which implies that the British ships just happened to be in the area)
"in an attempt to lure Ramillies away from the convoy so that Gneisenau could attack the convoy" - I'd suggest rewording this to remove one of the uses of 'convoy'
"One of the surviving ships radioed the location of the German battleships, which summoned the powerful British battleships Rodney and King George V." - this is a bit imprecise - the merchant ship didn't 'summon' the battleships with its signal, but rather led the RN to dispatch the battleships.
"the design of which was based on the lessons learned from the torpedoing of Prinz Eugen and Lützow, both of which had been torpedoed earlier in the year" - one less variant of 'torpedoed' would make this read better (eg, "the design of which was based on the lessons learned from torpedoing of Prinz Eugen and Lützow earlier in the year")

I also have some comments on the article's content:

"On 22 February, the pair spotted an empty convoy sailing west" - the name of this convoy should be included
A lot of postwar books covering the German surface fleet have been very critical about Scharnhorst and her sister not engaging convoy HX-106 (on the grounds that this was unnecessarily cautious given the extent to which they outclassed the obsolete HMS Ramillies and reflected poorly on the German Navy's fighting spirit) and these views should be covered when the article is developed further, along with any counter-arguments.
"On 15 March, the two battleships, with the two tankers in company, encountered a dispersed convoy in the mid-Atlantic" - again, please name this convoy (it should also be linked as the action is clearly notable)
"increasing Allied anti-submarine capabilities were steadily degrading the effectiveness of the U-boats" is putting it mildly. By late 1943 the U-boat force in the North Atlantic had been throughly beaten and any major operations in this area led to crippling losses.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
I've made some suggestions above, but the general quality is sufficient for GA class

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
I've also made some comments above about clarifying some parts of the article, but these are minor issues and easily addressed

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
The attribution of File:HMS Glorious last picture.jpg to a US Navy sailor seems unlikely to be correct, but this should be PD-UK Gov given its age and where it was taken (from the deck of a British aircraft carrier it would seem) so there are no major dramas

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Great work, I look forward to seeing this at a ACR or FAC