Talk:Hemmema/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 22:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Copyedited (but some unit conversions needed). - Dank (push to talk) 22:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
• Disambiguations: two dab links [3]:
  • Pohjanmaa
  • Turunmaa
• Linkrot: one of the external links reports as being dead [4]:
  • Information on af Chapman at the Sveaborg official website (info) [suomenlinna.fi]
• Alt text: images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (not a GA requirement, suggestion only).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: a few repeat links to be removed:
  • turuma x 3
  • galley

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • "Several new ships were designed by the naval architect Fredrik Henrik af Chapman to bolster the hitting-power of the new Swedish armament, to provide it with better naval defense and greater fire support capabilities during amphibious operations." Consider instead "... the hitting-power of the new Swedish maritime forces..."
  • "The result was four new vessels that combined the maneuverability of oar-powered galleys with the superior rigs and decent living conditions of sailing ships...", consider instead "...with the superior rigs and more comfortable living conditions of sailing ships..."
  • inconsistent terminology: "Small "galleasses" had been built for the English navy as early as the mid-16th century, and the British navy had equipped". English navy and British navy were the same thing and were / is officially called the Royal Navy. Using English and British navy in the same sentence implies that they are two different navies, not the same. Perhaps reword? (also something I realise I didn't pick up in my review of Udema so it probably needs to be fixed there too.
  • All  Done Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • Article is well referenced with most major points cited to WP:RS.
  • Footnote # 21 uses a different reference format to the rest. Throughout the article you use a short citation format, with the full citation provided in the reference section. Suggest you do the same here for consistency.  Done
  • No issues with OR that I could see.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Most major points seem to be covered without unnecessary detail.
  • I was a little unclear about the table - I assume this only includes the Swedish vessels, not the Russian ones. Could this be clarified?  Done
  • Uses summary style.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues I could see.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

  • Images all seem to be free / PD and have the req'd information / templates.
  • Captions mostly ok, one issue:
    • "Contemporary color drawing of the hemmema Oden, the first of its type to be built". Oden is wikilinked but takes you through to an article on a type of Japanese soup. Can this link be fixed?  Done

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Quite a good article in my opinion, just a few issues to work through / discuss. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for another brisk, efficient review.

This ought to do it. Regarding English/British navy, I opted for Tudor navy and Royal Navy. The former is the predecessor of the latter but not synonymous with it. For comparison, think of Kingdom of England vs Kingdom of Great Britain (or United Kingdom).

Regarding linking to oden. Heh! :-D

Peter ^Isotalo 10:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Happy with those changes, good point about the Tudor navy - you taught me something. Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)