Talk:SMS Thüringen/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progression

Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

a (Disambiguations): b Linkrot c Alt text

no dabs found by the tools.
no issues with external links.
according to the tools, alt text is present on some images, but not the one in the infobox. You might consider adding it, but it is not a requirement.

Added. Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

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

in the lead, I think the writing might flow a little better with the addition of a linking word. For instance: "however, and were therefore spared the destruction of the fleet in Scapa Flow. Thüringen and her sisters were eventually ceded to the victorious..." This could be linked more clearly by changing it to: "however, and were therefore spared the destruction of the fleet in Scapa Flow. Nevertheless, Thüringen and her sisters were eventually ceded to the victorious";
there seems to be some discrepancy in the commissioning dates. For instance, "commissioned into the fleet on 10 September 1911" (lead), "1 July 1911" (infobox), "commissioned into the High Seas Fleet on 1 June 1911" (Construction section), "After her commissioning on 1 July 1911" (Service history section);
in the World War I section, this sentence doesn't go anywhere: "The assault force, which included the eight I Squadron battleships, the battlecruisers Von der Tann, Moltke, and Seydlitz, several light cruisers, 32 destroyers and 13 minesweepers. " (You could either remove ", which", or add a clause to the end of the sentence explaining what the assault force did);
in the Battle of Jutland section "I Scouting Group" is wikilinked, but it should probably be wikilinked in the previous section where it is first introduced;
there is a slight inconsistency in presentation: "Helgoland class" (in the first sentence of the lead) or "Helgoland-class" (in the infobox)?
this seems slightly inconsistent: in the lead "French navy", but in the Fate section "French Navy";
the final paragraph of the Fate section seems a little unclear. The first part of the paragraph talks about the scuttling at Scarpa Flow, but doesn't clearly state that Thuringen wasn't there. Also, it doesn't actually state why the ship was eventually turned over to the French. I assume it was part of the reparations agreed upon by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles? I'd suggest maybe reducing the detail about the scuttling, and tweaking the parts of the paragraph that specifically relates to Thuringen to make it focus a little more on the ship itself;
in the Footnotes section, there is a subsection with the same name "Footnotes". This seems a little strange to me. Can I suggest changing the main heading to "Notes", so that you then have the smaller headings of "Footnotes" and "Citations" below that;
there is a slight inconsistency in the Citations: "Halpern, pp. 197–198" as opposed to "Tarrant, pp. 246–7";
in the Citations: "Gröner, pp. 56, 57". Should this just be "Gröner, pp. 56–57"?
there is a slight inconsistency in the References, German Battleships: 1914–1918 (1) as opposed to German Battleships: 1914–1918 (Volume 2).

I think I've got everything you pointed out, thanks for finding these. Parsecboy (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

No issues.

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

Listed above in the prose section.

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':

No issues.

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Overall a good article, IMO, but I have a few comments that I think should be addressed before being promoted. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The changes look good to me, well done. I have passed it for GA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]