Talk:SMS Kaiser Franz Joseph I

Photo

here. Parsecboy (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kges1901 (talk · contribs) 22:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Other Comments

• Under proposals and budget, the information about the currency reform seems irrelevant in the body, it could be better presented as a footnote.

• Done

• Are you using Donko or not? It should be moved to further reading otherwise.

• Good catch. Fixed.

• Last paragraph of design is repetitive - you mention battleships of the future twice. Additionally, Her two large guns of the cruisers is unclear as to what is meant. Do you mean cruiser-type armament?

• Another good catch. Deleted that second usage of the phrase. That was probably a leftover from my copyediting that didn't get deleted. "of the cruisers" is a needless set of words in this sentence that just confuses readers. While both her and her sister had the same armament, this article is about one ship, not both. Removed it to clear that up.

• Made some small copyedits, mostly to link terms at first mention in body, feel free to rv if you have objections.

• I like your edits. Thank you!

• Do your sources use "Boche di Cattaro"? It would seem, at least from Baedeker's, that at the time it would be called the Bay of Cattaro in English.

• All my sources use the Italian translation of the Bay. It seems it was known commonly by it's Italian name until the collapse of Austria-Hungary. This seems to be the case of many places within the Autro-Hungarian Empire at the time.

• On the Cattaro mutiny, do your sources have more detail about Kaiser Franz Joseph I's specific actions during it? Currently there is only one specific description of what she was doing. Kges1901 (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, it seems she didn't really do much during the mutiny. Many ships during the mutiny more or less stood on the sidelines and raised the red flag for a period of time just to make sure they didn't create waves (no pun intended) with the more active revolutionaries on other ships.
• Thank you for starting this review! I’ll be sure to address these points as soon as possible.—White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 04:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)