Talk:Regele Ferdinand-class destroyer/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 02:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I will take a look at this one. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
General comments: G'day, Sturm, this looks pretty good. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
- the information in the infobox is supported by the body except:
- being preceded by the Vifor class
- Not sure if this one was dealt with? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't think that it needs citing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't think that it needs citing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure if this one was dealt with? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- being succeeded by Mărășești
- Had to delete Marasesti since she was a frigate, but I've never cited preceding or succeeding class before
- being preceded by the Vifor class
- this seems slightly contradictory: "decided to order a pair..." v. "Four destroyers were intended to be ordered, but only two were actually built"
- I think that they'd planned to build two pairs at a time, but ran out of money before the second pair was ordered. But nobody actually says this.
- Perhaps change the first part to "the Romanian Government decided to order several modern destroyers". Would that work? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps change the first part to "the Romanian Government decided to order several modern destroyers". Would that work? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think that they'd planned to build two pairs at a time, but ran out of money before the second pair was ordered. But nobody actually says this.
- 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?
- Axis linked in the lead. Is that not clear enough?
- Ok, no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Axis linked in the lead. Is that not clear enough?
- 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?
- Not in anything available to me.
- Ok, no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not in anything available to me.
- 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.
- I see quite a few entries on worldcat for the publisher, and Google Scholar also has quite a few entries: [1]. So it is probably okay. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- Unfortunately, the throughlink at the Wayback machine isn't helping, either. I guess it's a permanent deadlink. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- 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
- Added. Thanks for giving this a look. You've been missed. See if my changes work for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
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):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- No issues detected. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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: