Talk:Magdeburg-class cruiser/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 19:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Status

This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s).

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):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Discussion

Regarding the failing point:

2(a): the lead section is completely unreferenced. The already present references can be reused in order to address this shortcoming.

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sections do not require citations if the material is cited later in the body, see WP:LEADCITE. Parsecboy (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, it is not required, though I think it might be better to have at least something referenced.

Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.
— WP:LEADCITE

If you are still convinced that nothing could be challenged in the lead, I would dismiss this notice and pass the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is fine as is - standard practice is to omit citations in the lead for everything except possibly for DYK hooks. This is the way I've written scores of articles, including a couple dozen FAs, and it's never been an issue. Parsecboy (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Though it isn't required, I would suggest to port footnotes to {{sfn}} format in order to make the references easier accessed.

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like adding unnecessary templates to pages that already use a fair few; too many templates tend to slow down pages much worse than the additional characters do, especially on slower connections. Parsecboy (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, as interclusions on Wikipedia are included in the document while it is generated from wiki code, so the templates result in the addition characters. Anyway, it was a suggestion, WP:MOS doesn't require {{sfn}} for WP:SFN. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the act of transcluding something onto a page usually slows down the page more than the simple coding. There have been numerous discussions on this in the past. The other issue is, I've been using this same citation format for 3 or 4 years now - I don't particularly feel like relearning the muscle memory for something of relatively minor benefit. Parsecboy (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]