Talk:U-1 class submarine (Austria-Hungary)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- a few things - see below.
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- Prose
- A few issues, all minor
- "after allowing the navies of other countries to pioneer submarine developments, in 1904 ordered the Austrian Naval Technical Committee (MTK) to produce a submarine design."
- "in 1904" is out of place.
- Reworded to avoid awkward phrasing
- "in 1904" is out of place.
- "When the Navy rejected the January 1905 MTK design and other designs submitted as part of a public competition as impracticable"
- One longgg part of a sentence...
- Split and reworded
- What is the "MTK design"?
- the design from the Austrian Naval Technical Committee, or MTK, referred to in the previous sentence.
- Sorry, that was me being dumb. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 19:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- the design from the Austrian Naval Technical Committee, or MTK, referred to in the previous sentence.
- One longgg part of a sentence...
- Random
- Do you really have to cite the same refs twice in the first para of "Service Career"?
- The first one should have been for Conway's and has been changed.
- Can we get a ref for the submerged speed (I'm assuming that it is Conway's...?)
- I think I got this changed(?)
- Yep! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 19:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think I got this changed(?)
- Do you really have to cite the same refs twice in the first para of "Service Career"?
I'm putting it on hold, but I'm not really worried that these won't get done. Yet another excellent article from you, Bellhalla! :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review and the comments. My replies to your concerns are interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Perfect! Easy pass! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 19:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)