Talk:SMS Elbing

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Elbing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 23:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Status

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

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.	The phrase "They rigged an improvised sail in an attempt to bring the ship closer to shore, but at around 03:00, but British destroyers were spotted to the south and the order to scuttle the ship was given." (italics added) should be fixed.  Done The last two sentences should be separated from the (currently) last paragraph, as they give a false impression that SMS Elbing engaged in battle with Dutch trawler. If she did, it should be clarified.  Done The word though "Elbing was briefly engaged by the battlecruisers at very long range, though she was not hit." (second paragraph of the Battle of Jutland section should probably be replaced with some logically neutral word. The sentences "At 02:00, the torpedo boat S53 came alongside and took off 477 officers and men of Elbing's crew. Her commander and a small group of officers and men remained on board." of the last paragraph raises the questions about the crew number in Infobox and Design section. I understand that these numbers are not supposed to match ideally, but the deviation is pretty high. Probably the reasons should be explained or the number (in the last paragraph) should be omitted.  Done The forth paragraph of Battle of Jutland section has these sentences: "The British destroyers launched a torpedo attack, which forced the three cruisers to turn to starboard to avoid them. This pointed them directly at the German line. Elbing attempted to steam between Nassau and Posen..." The sentence in the middle probably should be clarified. Though the meaning of them seems clear from the next sentence, the ease of reading will benefit from clarification.  Done
	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).	Displacement by design isn't referenced in Infobox and isn't mentioned in article.  Done
	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.

Discussion

Please reply to the comments in the Status section here.

All three items should be addressed. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your third point in the first box - "though" is a neutral word (unlike "luckily/unfortunately" or something like those). It's a simple statement of fact. Parsecboy (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I was meaning that though implies unlikeliness, which seems to contradict the situation. This issue is pretty minor. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not how I read it - as far as I'm aware, "though" is similar "but", and has no connotation like you suggested. That said, it was extremely unlikely for the ship to have been hit, the British battlecruisers had the worst accuracy of any unit in the engagement, somewhere in the 2% range, and most of those came at much closer range than this, later in the battle. Heck, HMS New Zealand, the worst-shooting ship of the battle, scored a whopping 2 or 3 hits out of over 400 large-caliber rounds fired, less than 1% accuracy. Parsecboy (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Though my knowledge of the battle is by far less deep then your's, I also came to conclusion that the damage in that situation was unlikely. The process of review is now complete. Good work! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the issues 1a3 – 1a5 are recommendations. I won't fail GA on this basis. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: crew size - ships typically had a larger wartime crew, which is what this discrepancy represents. I clarified that in the design section.

Fixed the "them"s. Parsecboy (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)