Talk:SMS Pfeil/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 16:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tomobe, just to let you know, I'll be away for a day or two, so I won't be able to get to anything right away. Parsecboy (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. There's absolutely no rush.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No disambiguation links found (no action required)
No duplicate links (no action required)
No broken external links (no action required)
Please add US PD tag to the image used in the infobox
- I think, unfortunately, that the picture is actually still copyrighted in the US, since it was still copyrighted in Germany when the URAA went into effect in 1996 (which means the copyright was automatically extended in the US, unless the painting was done before 1923). Since there's no evidence that the painting was done before 1923, I don't think we can use it. I'll check on Commons and see what they say.
  - Huh, as far as I know, non-free images must have a fair-use rationale then instead.
    - I don't think fair use will work in this case, since there's a free equivalent (File:Kleiner Kreuzer SMS Blitz (1882).png that adequately illustrates this type of ship. I've nominated the painting for deletion on Commons, we'll see what happens there.

Referencing:

Please add ISSN or OCLC numbers where appropriate (similar to SMS Zieten refs)
- I've added what I can - the Notes on the Year's Naval Progress one isn't coming up in Worldcat, though.
  - According to this the OCLC number is 6954233.
    - Excellent - I'm not sure why I couldn't find that.
Courtney and Garbett journal articles are indicated by volume number only. Is there issue number or other details (page range or similar) which could be added to define position of the articles within the volume?
- Added page numbers for both.

MOS:

Per MOS:YEAR, year ranges should be given using two digits of the closing year, e.g. 1889–90 instead of 1889–1890
- Should all be fixed.

Prose:

I assume the expression ...where she acted in the simulated hostile fleet. means that she was a part of the simulated hostile fleet. Or does it mean she acted against them in the simulation? (just checking)
- Yes, the former is correct. Is there anything I should change to make it clearer?
  - Not really. I was just checking if I got that right.
The prose specifies the maximum draft of 4.07 m, while the infobox specifies draft of 4.22 m (the latter not being mentioned anywhere in the prose). Are the two different types of measurement of some sort or should one of the two be corrected?
The prose specifies she was commissioned on 25 November 1884, while the infobox specifies 25 November 1883. Please fix one of those as appropriate.
- I'll need to check these once I get home later this afternoon.
  - No problem, there's no rush.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Both were apparently typos, should be good now. Parsecboy (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]