Talk:Graudenz-class cruiser/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Buggie111 (talk · contribs) 00:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Happy New Year, Nate! Let's check this baby out ...:)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	=tes	Result
(a) (prose)	longitudinal-link or definition would be nice, thikc: is this some sort of British English I don't know about? :)	Undetermined
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

Both fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	I can't remember if infoboxes had to be cited. I assume not.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	"The ships both were laid down in 1912", is it possible to get a date on this? You don't say when Graudenz actually hit the mine, available? Any Italian history on either of them?	Undetermined
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

No exact dates in Groner or Conways, or anywhere else I've seen. Also nothing specific on the mine hit, just the reference in Campbell to that being why she wasn't at Jutland. Foreign service records are pretty slim as well. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	I doubt any images are available.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

Unfortunately not - I searched through the old naval annuals and such and couldn't even find a line-drawing. I suppose fair use would be acceptable at this point. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	~~Almost there.~~ Passed. Buggie111 (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

Additional Notes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]