Talk:SMS Nautilus (1906)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 21:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Progression
[edit]- Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
- Version of the article when review was closed: [2]
Technical review
[edit]- Citations: the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required)
- Disambiguations: no dabs - [3] (no action req'd)
- Linkrot: No dead links - [4] (no action req'd).
- Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it - [5] (no action req'd, not part of the GA criteria / suggestion only)
- Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
- Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed (no action req'd).
Criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- Is there a typo here: "hull was launched as Nautilus on 20 August 1906." In the infobox it says launched on 28 August.
- The 28th is correct, good catch.
- "... both five miles long..." perhaps use the {{convert}} template here?
- Good idea.
- Slightly repetitive prose here: "...Following the disbanding of the unit the following..." (following x 2 in close proximity - perhaps reword one?)
- Changed the second one to "next".
- I made a few edits [7].
- All look fine to me.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- No issues. Article is well referenced and looks to reflect the sources available on this vessel.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- All major aspects seem to be covered.
- Article is focused and doesn't go into unnecessary detail.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- No issues.
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No issues.
- 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 are appropriate for article and appear to be PD / free and have the req'd documentation.
- Captions look ok.
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- This looks good to me, only a couple of fairly minor prose points above to address /discuss. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- No worries, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)