Talk:German cruiser Blücher/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Starstriker7^(Talk) 14:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got this review. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 14:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1

In Note 1, a period should go at the end of the second sentence.
In the Construction section, why was the ship "to have" the other guns? Was her anti-aircraft battery not installed before she sank? If so (or if not), the this reason should be clarified in this section.
I remember being told in previous GA reviews that wikilinks do not need to be repeated. If this is true, then you can/should de-wikilink Oslo, Oslofjord, Oscarsborg Fortress, and Oskar Kummetz.
- Should all be fixed - I wrote this one after doing German cruiser Seydlitz and German cruiser Lützow (1939), both of which were unfinished - must have had that still on my mind :) As for links, I like to link in the lead and the first time in the body, which I think is fine per WP:REPEATLINK. Parsecboy (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alright! Thank you also for clarifying that section of MOS for me. I'll keep it in mind. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 01:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 2

As always, this is all set, from what I can see. The article is well-referenced, and inline citations/a separate ref section is used. Because the sources are offline and inaccessible to me, I will accept 2c (NOR) in good faith.

Criterion 3

Article is both broad and well-focused.

Criterion 4

The article is written in a neutral tone. There are no sides to whom you can really give due weight.

Criterion 5

All quiet in the edit history.

Criterion 6

Can "Recognition drawing" (second picture) be wikilinked?
In the third image's caption, replace "Norway, from" with "Norway as seen from"
In the last image caption, Oscarsborg is misspelled.
- Thanks for catching those. As for "recognition drawing", I seem to think someone asked the same question at a recent FAC (maybe one of Ed's?) and the conclusion was that there isn't an article that would make a good link for the term. Parsecboy (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall comments

This was a pretty fun read. I've seldom imagine World War II like this, and it feels like someone could make the story of the Blücher into some sort of movie. :P

In any case, Parsecboy, I hope your transition to World War II-era ships continues to go smoothly. This is pretty much already a good article, and I'll pass it as such once the remaining comments are addressed. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 15:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article, Starstriker7. And as for editing articles on WWII-era ships, I've been all over the board over the last couple of years, the ironclads were sort of a diversion for me :) Parsecboy (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you remain so dedicated to writing all these ship articles? I feel burned out after writing only about fifty planet articles.

If you're gonna answer that, do it on my talk page, because this article's all set to pass. I will do so in a moment. As always, good work. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 01:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is completely anecdotal, but I'm wondering if some corroboration can be had anywhere. My grandfather served on the Blücher and related that most of the soldiers on board were mountaineers. He believed that many of them hadn't ever seen the ocean, and that few could even swim. When the ship went down, a great many of them apparently abandoned ship with their life vests, but also with all their gear and tackle. Most went under and never came back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.79.245.176 (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]