Talk:German destroyer Z25/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 03:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I will take this one, comments to follow in next few days. Zawed (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

• The stated draft is inconsistent with what is stated in the Design and description section.
• Armament: refers to 1 twin 15cm gun as well as two singles for four guns total, but Design and description section says these four guns were all single mounts.
• A commander is listed here but not mentioned in text.

Modifications

• "No. 3 gun was also removed to make room for additional AA guns under the 1944 Barbara program": The use of "also" to me implies this was done at the same time as the mid-1942 refit but then this is inconsistent with the reference to the "1944 Barbara program". Perhaps context is required for the Barbara program as well. I assume that it is something to do with an increasing focus on protection from aircraft attacks.

Anti-convoy operations

• While I appreciate some context is required to explain why the Z25 was doing what she was doing, I felt in a couple of places there was too much details on what other ships were doing. You may want to trim this section a little.

Baltic operations

• Probably need to drop in one reference to 1944 and 1945 in this section for sake of clarity.

French service

• The infobox says she entered service in August 1946 but that isn't explicitly stated here.

Other stuff

• Image tags check OK
• No dab links
• No dupe links
• The one external link checks out OK

That's my initial review complete, will check back in a few days. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for going over this so carefully. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks good except for the commander not being mentioned in the text. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I have two different sets of dates for when he was in command, and no easy way of determining which is correct, so I'd prefer not to have to choose one or the other in the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Zawed (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2018 (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:

I am satisfied that this article meets GA standard. Passing as GA now. Zawed (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)