Talk:SMS Kaiser (1858)

Source

For construction details. Parsecboy (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Kaiser (1858)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 16:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Well constructed, will come back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Section 1

• Para 1; Link "Archduke" to its article.
  • Done
• Para 1; After "HMS Agamemnon" you could add something like ",a 91-gun battleship,".
  • Added, but before the name, not after.
• Para 1; "the plans for which the Royal Navy provided to Austria in exchange for Austria remaining neutral during the Crimean War of 1853–1856" may be revised as "the plans for which the Royal Navy provided to Austria in exchange for its neutral role during the Crimean War of 1853–1856", because the latter reduces the use "Austria".
  • How about just switching the second "Austria" for "the country"?

That's fine. Go ahead. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I already made the change. Parsecboy (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Para 1; In the end it is mentioned that Österreich was cancelled, please try to mention something about why it was cancelled (only if available in the source).
  • Lambert doesn't give a reason, but it was presumably a budgetary issue - it was a chronic problem for the Austrian and later Austro-Hungarian Navy for basically its entire existence.
• Para 2; It must be "Kaiser's original characteristics", not "Kaiser''s original characteristics"
  • Fixed
• Para 2; Link "Wilhelm von Rüstow" to his article, Wilhelm Rüstow.
  • Done
• The Infobox has two "General characteristics" one is "(as built)" and the "(other)" is "(1873)", the information in the first one in mentioned in the prose, the date presented in latter one is never discussed in the prose. Mention something about this 1873 characteristics. Found this in the latter sections. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Section 2

• In the second sentence, what does "under her own power" mean? Is it necessary?
  • It's as opposed to being towed by another ship.
• In the last sentence, can the rank of Friedrich von Pöck be mentioned while he commanded the ship?
  • Presumably he'd have been a Linienschiffskapitän, but Sondhaus doesn't give his rank.

Section 2.1

• Para 1; In "Tegetthoff, by now promoted to Rear Admiral", I think "R" and "A" of "Rear Admiral" must be recapitalized.
  • No, it's only capitalized when it's used with conjunction with a name - so you'd say "President Obama" and "the senior executive position in the United States is the president".
• Para 2; Earlier in the first para it is mentioned as Kaiser served as the flagship, but here it is mentioned as Re d'Italia (Persano transferred from his flagship, Re d'Italia, to the turret ship Affondatore).
  • Right - Re d'Italia was the Italian flagship. The fact that he switched ships just before the battle caused considerable confusion during the battle and to some extent explains the Italian defeat.
• Para 2; Link "melee".
  • Done
• Para 3; In "Kaiser also struck a glancing blow, however, and inflicted little damage", I think "and" must be replaced by "it".
  • No, if you condense it, the sentence would read "Kaiser struck and inflicted little damage"

Section 2.2

• Para 4; In "She was immediately returned to the II Reserve. In 1880, the ship had her rigging reduced and she received new boilers", may be revised as "She was immediately returned to the II Reserve. In 1880, the ship had her rigging reduced and received new boilers".
  • Sounds fine to me
• Para 5; Link "Venezuela".
  • Done

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• No issues. Just asking, is a separate template needed for this class and the ship? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It's mostly for navigation purposes, so you get the class before and after, and so the article is standardized with the rest of the classes. The template could be substituted, but then changes to the template structure could not be done very easily. Thanks again for another review! Parsecboy (talk) 12:17, 18 October 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) 15:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)