Talk:SMS Budapest/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 23:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Initial readthrough
[edit]On a first pass, this looks like strong stuff: well written, organized, and sourced. I've done some minor copyedits as I went, so please check my work to make sure I didn't accidentally introduce errors into the article.
- The article appears to switch between using roman numerals (I. division) and Arabic (1st division). The latter seems much clearer to me as a reader, but whichever is preferred, it should be made consistent in the article. I changed the first instance of this, but on seeing another (V.) realized I should leave this to you to determine.
- Good catch. Standardized
- "Both ships were fitted with a 66-millimeter (2.6 in) anti-aircraft gun" -- this should probably be "both ships were fitted with 66-millimeter (2.6 in) anti-aircraft guns" or "each ship was fitted with a 66-millimeter (2.6 in) anti-aircraft gun"
- Fixed
- "knocked out" -- slightly idiomatic-- how about "destroyed"?
- Knocked out is what my source uses so I don't know if the guns were destroyed. But I could use "silenced" if you'd prefer.
- No, that's fine. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Greger and Sieche (1985) are listed in the references section but don't appear to be cited in the article.
- One deleted and the other moved to a further reading section. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for getting to these so quickly! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Checklist
[edit]| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | Pass |