Talk:HMS Imogen (D44)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a GA Review. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of nomination was Pass to Good Article. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer: TopGun (talk · contribs) 02:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Prose and word choice is good.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Sources are present but none are cited in the lead. Further more, it would be better to add links to the sources. Nominator has clarified concerns; did some review as well, source are reliable.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Article is well focused on the topic. Major aspects are covered to the point.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Sticks to NPOV.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
I don't see any edit wars here since the start.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Image caption and rationale is appropriate.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Second opinion needed on whether all major aspects are covered? Details of sinking seem to be a bit too short. The citations are not linked though some are separately given in another section. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead doesn't ordinarily require citations provided that the information there is cited in the main body. See WP:Lead--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read through the GA criteria carefully, and then use your own judgment. It helps to read Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not. I don't alway like the citation style, but that is up to the editor. (I don't like the style in this article because it puts too much work on the reader, but ça la vie! It you think the details about the sinking are too short, then express that to the nominator. Usually nominators are very cooperative, but sometimes they really don't have access to any more information. So you can have a discussion with them about your concerns, and then decide. Also, you don't have to do the whole review at once but can take a few days and think about it. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the help MathewTownsend. Yes, it didn't come in the 'not cited' zone so I used the word 'better'. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything more specific about what damage the ship suffered in the collision. What else would you like to know?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the information from "English", I could not find on internet (mainly the figures in the last sentence), though it can still pass on basis of WP:SOURCEACCESS but I'll like to know if there is an online source or, on a side note, how you got the information otherwise (so that I can do some review of that). The detail about sinking is a bit short in description. If more information is not available on damage specifics, try adding some description to the event of sinking from the sources. Currently it gives just two lines. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there's an online source for anything in the article; I generally use printed sources because they satisfy WP:RS far more easily. It's not generally your job to review the sources during a GAN, but you do need to assess if they're reliable or not and if everything is cited to meet WP:V. See WP:WIAGA for the actual criteria. Remember that the article only needs to be reasonably complete and cover "the main aspects of the topic".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the sources are properly cited. However, the user giving 2nd opinion cited a guideline for judging for GA which states it should generally be reviewed if the sources provided actually support the content being cited. I found some online sources confirming your clarification. Yes, sinking is a major aspect which brings it into grey area, otherwise the article is looking good for a pass. Is it possible to add some more description to the sinking event from whatever information is available? --lTopGunl (talk) 13:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The exact quote from English is "She was in collision with the cruiser Glasgow in thick fog off Duncansby Head. Imogen was extensively damaged, caught fire and was abandoned, sinking in position xxxx. 19 ratings were lost but 10 officers and 125 ratings were picked up by Glasgow." Unless you find a book dedicated to the ship or its class, most ship-related books often have even less info than this simply because they're trying to cover a lot of ships in one volume.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the criteria is based mainly on the coverage itself and the mention of sinking is atleast explained, I'll pass it as further detailed information is not available. The article overall is good enough to claim a pass otherwise. Thanks for being responsive to the concerns. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a GA Review. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.