Talk:SMS Karlsruhe (1916)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 23:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- This is awkward: the primary naval component was to comprise the flagship, Moltke, tense doesn't match rest of paragraph. And tell me what type of ship Moltke was. I think you mean "insufficient number of minesweepers" insufficient minesweepers and bad weather This is also awkward: The Admiralstab ordered the naval component to return to the North Sea. perhaps a "then" in there somewhere? Break this in half and combine the first part with the previous sentence and the second part with the following sentence: Karlsruhe sank at 15:50 and was never raised for scrapping. The rights to her wreck were sold in 1962.
- Should all be fixed.
- This is awkward: the primary naval component was to comprise the flagship, Moltke, tense doesn't match rest of paragraph. And tell me what type of ship Moltke was. I think you mean "insufficient number of minesweepers" insufficient minesweepers and bad weather This is also awkward: The Admiralstab ordered the naval component to return to the North Sea. perhaps a "then" in there somewhere? Break this in half and combine the first part with the previous sentence and the second part with the following sentence: Karlsruhe sank at 15:50 and was never raised for scrapping. The rights to her wreck were sold in 1962.
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- Add turbines and boilers to infobox. Link boilers. You have the wrong Staff book in the bibliography.
- All fixed.
- Add turbines and boilers to infobox. Link boilers. You have the wrong Staff book in the bibliography.
- B. Focused:
- How can minesweepers repulse a cruiser-destroyer sized attack?
- The engagement lasted only 15 minutes and the British were hampered by poor visibility. It also seems the British didn't press the attack all that hard - one of the minesweepers was immobilized from a hit, but they didn't finish her off. That said, Staff doesn't explain why the British broke off the engagement.
- Then say that the British broke off the engagement. It would be good find out why, though. Perhaps Marder or the British official history?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Changed to your suggestion. I don't have Marder handy, and the first edition of the official history is the only one viewable in Google Books. It is in the main OSU library - perhaps I'll have some time to check it out this week.
- Don't bother, I looked and can't even find any mention of the engagement, so Marder's your only hope.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Changed to your suggestion. I don't have Marder handy, and the first edition of the official history is the only one viewable in Google Books. It is in the main OSU library - perhaps I'll have some time to check it out this week.
- Then say that the British broke off the engagement. It would be good find out why, though. Perhaps Marder or the British official history?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- The engagement lasted only 15 minutes and the British were hampered by poor visibility. It also seems the British didn't press the attack all that hard - one of the minesweepers was immobilized from a hit, but they didn't finish her off. That said, Staff doesn't explain why the British broke off the engagement.
- How can minesweepers repulse a cruiser-destroyer sized attack?
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
How is the new Staff book?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Pretty good so far. On a side note, my internet's been down since Wednesday, but should hopefully be back up today or tomorrow, so I won't be able to get to anything until then. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)