Talk:SMS Posen

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 14:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am reviewing this article and it quite well written. I have only a few comments:

Service history

• "1912 followed a similar pattern, though the summer cruise to Norway was interrupted by the Agadir crisis" - suggest rewording so sentence doesn't start with a number
  • Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Jutland

• "and straddled Indomitable several times" - is "straddled" in this context a ship term?
  • It's used frequently in this context to describe a salvo of shells falling around a ship (i.e, some on one side, some on the other). Do you have any ideas how this could be made clearer? Parsecboy (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
    • "Fired several near misses"? Buggie111 (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Expedition to Finland

• "They departed for the Åland Islands on the following morning. Åland was to be a forward operating base, from which the port of Hanko would be secured, following an assault on the capital of Helsingfors." - I think I know what you mean, but perhaps it could be clearer.
  • How does it look now? Parsecboy (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Xtzou (Talk) 14:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good and I am passing the article. Xtzou (Talk) 15:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Clearly and concisely written

   B. MoS compliance: Complies with required elements of MoS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Reliable sources

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Sets the context

   B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 15:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Notes

• Presumably named for the Province of Posen, but do you have any sources on this? - Dank (push to talk) 05:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • (Don't spend any energy looking, there's a good chance the sources won't say anything, I'm just saying we should cite it if someone did mention it.) - Dank (push to talk) 05:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    • You're correct, Staff's book notes the namesakes for each ship. Parsecboy (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Nate, before I get started, could you go through making the same changes I've made in your other articles? "("His Majesty's ship Posen")", "German Imperial Navy" (and Kaiserliche Marine can go immediately after if you like), etc. - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Sure, I'll do it momentarily. Parsecboy (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I've done all of those, are there any other "standard" fixes that need to be made? I scanned your edits to SMS Hannover and SMS Blücher but didn't see any that jumped out as being applicable here necessarily. Thanks again for all your help. Speaking of Blücher, would you like to join me as a co-nom? I would have offered the same for Helgoland, but you had already reviewed it and then supported it. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks for those fixes; as I go through, I'll be thinking about a short list of "standard" things to add. Co-nomship: I thought of various reasons not to, but probably the best approach is to experiment, see what happens, and learn from it, so: sure. My only "rule" is that I don't accept co-nomship if I'm not digging in the sources, so let me scan past reviews and get a sense of what sources are best so I can buy them. - Dank (push to talk) 21:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• "use of turbines in heavy warships does not recommend itself.": the period was inside the quotes in what you're looking at, right? - Dank (push to talk) 03:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The line in Luxury Fleet has the period outside the quotes, but I've always been told punctuation goes inside the quotes, so that's what I did. Parsecboy (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
    • It's a complicated issue, I'll give you the whole run-down if you're interested. WP:LQ at WP:MOS used to be a mess but it's actually quite good now; give it a read. I'll move the period outside the quotes in this case. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
      • P.S. I meant good for getting people up to speed quickly on what's expected at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• Time out from hacking and slashing to pass on a couple of compliments. The most important things about writing can't be taught, and you have all those things. Writing about this stuff is fun for you, and that comes through on the page. And for some reason I've never been able to teach anyone when and when not to use topic sentences; either you get it or you don't, and you get it. "Posen participated in several training exercises with the rest of the fleet before the outbreak of war" is a topic sentence that prepares the reader to understand the context of the paragraph; most of your paragraphs don't need topic sentences, and you don't use them. I wish it were always this easy. - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• Per the nutshell at WP:CITE, we're going to need an inline citation for the Hipper quote that begins "To keep valuable ships ...". Did he say it in English or German? - Dank (push to talk) 03:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)