Talk:SMS Kronprinz/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technical review

a (Disambiguations): b Linkrot c Alt text

no dabs found by the tools.
No dabs;
No problems with ext links;
According to the tools, some of the images have alt text, but some don't. Its not a GA requirement, but I'd like to suggest that it could be added in.

Added. Parsecboy (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

"His Majesty's ship Crown Prince" in the lead, should this be "His Majesty's Ship Crown Prince"? Personally, I don't know;

Yes, it was just a typo. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there is a duplicate header - Operation Albion. Is there a reason for this?

Probably because I wrote that section at about 1am ;) Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the References, the ISBN for Tarrant is hyphenated but the others aren't - for consistency of style I suggest removing the hyphens;

Done. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the References, the Tarrant is the only work without full name and without a location. If possible can you add these in? If you don't have these details to hand, that's fine;

I added the location, but it seems we're stuck with the "V.E" - even worldcat has him that way. Perhaps his first name is something rather embarrassing ;) Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"German Imperial Navy" and "German Navy" - use of interchangable proper nouns. I think it would be okay to use interchangeable terms if one was a proper noun and the other wasn't, e.g. Imperial German Navy and German navy, but not when both are being used as proper nouns;

Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the lead "She was torpedoed by the British submarine HMS J1 on 5 November 1916." I think this requires a modifier like "however" because the previous sentence seemingly contradicts this one (it doesn't , but to the lay person it will seem like that);

Ok. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the Service history section you have a wikilink to "High Seas Fleet", however, that should be removed and the term should be linked on first mention in the lead and in the Construction and design section;

Done. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the Service history section, what was the consequence of this: "On 8 May an explosion occurred in the center turret's right gun"?

Staff doesn't say, and it isn't mentioned anywhere else. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest wikilinking "Grand Fleet" on first mention in the Service history section, as it might be confusing as to what this is;

Done. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest wikilinking David Beatty in the Jutland section;

Done. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest wikilinking terms like "pre-dreadnoughts" and "dreadnoughts" on first mention, as they would be unknown to most people;

Done. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the Subsequent operations section, I suggest moving the wikilink you have for "Sunderland" to the first mention of it, which occurs earlier in the paragraph;

Done. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Along with 9 light cruisers, 3 torpedo boat flotillas, and dozens of mine warfare ships, the entire force numbered some 300 ships, supported by over 100 aircraft and 6 zeppelins". Here I think you need to spell the values as they are under ten, for instance "9" should be "nine", "3" should be "three", etc.;

Done. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Bayern was severely wounded..." perhaps consider using the word "damaged" instead of wounded? It is a machine after all (although, the navy blokes I know would take offence at that);

Done. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"On 18 October, Kronprinz was slightly grounded" - what was the consequence or solution to this? I take it she got off and continued operations, but it doesn't say this;

Staff doesn't say, but I don't think it's OR to say what I added. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the Fate section, I suggest wikilinking "Kaiser" (as in the person), in order to clarify who this was;

Done. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in the Fate section, "to seize the German ships on 21 June..." what year was this? (I assume 1919, but you might want to make this clear);

Done. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

the last part of the Fate section appears to be uncited. "The ship was never raised for scrapping, unlike most of the other capital ships that were scuttled. The rights to future salvage operations on the wreck were sold to Britain in 1962."

Somehow I forgot to put the reference up, it's there now. Parsecboy (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

Looks fine in this regard.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

No problems that I can find.

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:

There has been considerable recent work, but nothing that looks like an edit war to me.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':

images appear to be appropriately licenced.

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Overall I feel that this is very good article. There are a few things that I feel need to be done to bring this article up to GA status, however, I do not feel that these warrant a quick fail as I believe that they are able to be achieved within a suitable timeframe. As such I will place it on hold to see what changes are made before deciding upon the outcome. I'm prepared to accept any reasonable explainations of my concerns, and any changes will be taken into consideration, of course. Good work so far.
Please feel free to annotate on this page how you have addressed each of the concerns, either by responding on a new line below the comment or by placing the {{Done}} tags beside them, so I know where you are up to. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. Passing for GA. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]