Talk:German cruiser Königsberg

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 23:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC) I'll review this and the other two Königsberg class cruisers in the next couple of days. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	* I have done a bit of a c/e of the lead to add wikilinks. Feel free to revert any you don't think are necessary. * Spotchecks for copyright problems all clear.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	* I really think the first sentence needs to be more comprehensive in terms of defining the subject. It is a very short sentence and doesn't really provide much information. What about something like "Königsberg was a German light cruiser that was operated between 1929 and April 1940, including service in World War II. She was the lead vessel of her class, and was operated by two German navies, ..." * I have a query about the format of the article title. According to WP:NCSHIP Königsberg should be italicised in the title.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	OK
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	OK
	2c. it contains no original research.	OK
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	OK
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	OK
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	OK
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	OK
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	OK
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	OK
	7. Overall assessment.	Review complete, on hold for seven days to address criteria 1b Passed.

Thanks for reviewing the article, Peacemaker - your changes all look fine to me, and I made the two corrections you suggested. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No prob, a pleasure. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why more main guns at the back?

This is a pretty unusual design feature (rarer even than all forward), so should the reason for it be mentioned somewhere? 2A02:2788:11AA:F8:E2CB:4EFF:FE88:1A2D (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)