Talk:SMS Don Juan d'Austria (1875)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 00:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Well constructed, will get back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Section 1

• Para 2; Sentence 1; There is comma(,) missing after the word "Krupp" in "....al.) guns manufactured by Krupp".
  • Added
• Para 3; sentence 1; The word "protection" may be removed because the word "armor" itself means something that was made to protect the body. It need not be followed by protection again.
  • Done.

Section 2

• Para 2; At the begining of the paragraph, the year was mentioned as 1880. But in the later sentences, it was mentioned that the ship attended the opening ceremony of Barcelona Universal Exposition that took place in 1888. At this instant the year 1888 was not mentioned. So a general reader may understand that the BUE also happened in 1880. So please mention the year in the sentence Barcelona Universal Exposition was put in.
  • Good point - I think that got left out during a rewrite of the sentence.
• Para 3; sentence 4; De-link "Pola" from its article, which creates a dup link as it was already linked in last sentence of first para in the section.
  • Fixed.

Lead

• There is comma(,) missing after "1904" in the last but one sentence.
  • I don't think it's necessary there, actually.

References

• It is not necessary to mention the page numbers in ref section, because they were already mentioned while citing the book in inline citations i.e notes section.
  • Generally when you cite an article, you should include the page numbers of the article
• In the case of 7th citation (notes section) i.e "Naval and Military Notes", p. 412 and 4th reference in the reference section having page numbers ranging from 409–427 contradict each other. I suggest removing the page numbers from the reference section.
  • See above.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for another review! Parsecboy (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)