Talk:German destroyer Z7 Hermann Schoemann/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs) 22:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I will start reviewing shortly MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2016 (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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	There is a bit of a mix of styles regarding the various Zerstörer Flotillen. Examples 6th Destroyer Flotilla (6. Zerstörer Flotille) and then 5. Zerstörer Flotille or 8. Zerstorer Flotille I figure that the reader can get the German and English terms on first use and then German from there on out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
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.	Theodor Detmers, commander listed in the infobox, is not references in the main body of the text. He was her 2nd commander from October 1938 to July 1940. HRS v4 p118. In case you want to add, Erich Schulte-Mönting 1st commander, later vice admiral, was Dönitz aide. He may be notable?? Definitely, both added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	138th Mountain Infantry Regiment was part of the 3rd Mountain Division (Wehrmacht), maybe worth linking According to HRS v4 p118, length was 121m. Was the bow changed? Linked, Gröner gives original bow length as 119 m and then sheer increased by a meter to 120. Nothing about 121 m length. Exact details are lacking about the bow rebuilding in these ships; one reason I'm in no particular hurry to get to the class article where I'll have to cover all that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing GA review, made two spelling corrections, please check

Thanks for looking this over, see if the changes suffice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)