Talk:SMS Hay (1860)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 15:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 14:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
This looks an interesting article that seems at first glance to be well-written and researched and close to meeting the Good article criteria already. I look forward to starting a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- Overall, the standard of the article is good.
- It is of reasonable length, with 1,001 words of readable prose.
- The lead is significant with a length of 135 words.
- Authorship is 100% from the nominator.
- It is currently assessed as a Start class article, although Rater predicts a B or higher.
- Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT to the image for accessibility.
Criteria
[edit]The six good article criteria:
- It is reasonable well written.
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- I only saw a small grammar correction needed, which I have fixed, as well as one of the wikilinks.
- Otherwise, I can see no grammar or spelling errors.
- it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
- It seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- A reference section is included; the sources listed have all the information needed.
- Is there a reason that the citations are author and page rather than author, date and page?
- all inline citations are from reliable sources;
- Spot checks confirm Hildebrand, Röhr, & Steinmetz 1993 and Lyon 1979. AGF for offline resources that I do not have access to.
- it contains no original research;
- All relevant statements have inline citations.
- it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
- Earwig gives a 2% chance of copyright violation, which is reported as "violation unlikely". The highest correlation is Conway's and is not significant,
- it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- It is broad in its coverage
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- The article covers the main aspects of the vessel's specification and service.
- There may be more information on page 33 of Hildebrand, Röhr, & Steinmetz 1993. Is there anything worth including?
- it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- The article looks compliant.
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- It has a neutral point of view.
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- The article seems generally balanced, using both German and English sources.
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- It is stable.
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- There is no evidence of edit wars.
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
- The image has appropriate PD tags.
- images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- The image is appropriate.
- images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
@Parsecboy: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)