Jump to content

Talk:Regele Ferdinand-class destroyer/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 02:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I will take a look at this one. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General comments: G'day, Sturm, this looks pretty good. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • the information in the infobox is supported by the body except:
  • this seems slightly contradictory: "decided to order a pair..." v. "Four destroyers were intended to be ordered, but only two were actually built"
  • the table in the Ships section appears to be unreferenced
    • Oops
  • the article appears to use British English variation, but I see at least one instance of "defense"
    • That one always slips by; it's nowhere near as obvious as the extra u in many words.
  • On 26 June 1941, shortly after the Axis invasion...: perhaps clarify Romania's alignment with Germany here?
  • link Operation Barbarossa
    • Thought I had, but obviously not!
  • Massively outnumbered by the Soviet Black Sea Fleet: link Black Sea Fleet?
    • Linked in the lede.
  • is there any information that can be added about what the ships did between 1930 and 1937, or between 1937 and 1941?
  • on a Romanian minefield --> "in a Romanian minefield"?
  • Romanians began laying minefields: move the link for minefield to the first mention
  • After Sevastopol surrendered --> "After the Soviet garrision at Sevastopol surrendered"?
  • encircled Sevastopol during April --> "encircled Axis troops in Sevastopol during April"?
  • their attacks so damaged her fuel system that she... --> "their attacks damaged her fuel system to the extent that she..."?
  • "Monakov & Rohwer" in the citations, but it is reverse order in the Bibliography
    • Good catch.
  • on face value the sources look reliable, although I wonder if you could tell me something about "Sakhapoligrafizdat"?
    • Not much, but it's not Samizdat ;-) A lot of the good post-Cold War Soviet naval history is coming from small presses of which I presume that this is one.
  • the Earwig tool reported no copyright violations likely: [2] (no action required)
  • the source link for "File:RegeleFerdinand1935.jpg" appears to be a dead link
    • Replaced
  • same as above for "File:RegeleFerdinand1930-1944.jpg"
    • Can't find an alternative source, but I don't think that it matters given the non-existent copyright on Romanian photos.
  • I suggest removing the header "External links", or adding a couple of links. Per the guidance at MOS:LAYOUTEL, the Commons link shouldn't sit in an EL section by itself

Criteria

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  • 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):
No issues detected. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
Article appears stable and isn't subject to a current edit war. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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:
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: