Talk:Nymphe-class corvette/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: KCVelaga (talk · contribs) 17:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Will take this one. KCVelaga (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@KCVelaga: - I'm wondering if you've lost track of this? Parsecboy (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: Hi, this is on my to do list. Sorry for the delay, I'll give my comments within a couple of days. KCVelaga (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll give my comments tomorrow. KCVelaga (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd like to get this done in time for the August WP:MILCON if possible. Parsecboy (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Lead and infobox
  • more slowly -> slower
    • Done
  • Suggest removing "powerful"; doesn't sound good with NPOV
    • There's no value judgement there - the the Danish fleet was much more powerful than the Prussian fleet is a simple fact
  • by a Danish steam frigate; Is the name of the frigate available? If yes, please mention
    • It's not relevant in the lead
  • A comma (,) after "Yokohama, Japan"
    • Done
  • attack on the French squadron; Is the name of the squadron available? If yes, please mention
    • No, there's no name given in any references I've seen
  • In Infobox; please clarify the draft, whether in forward or aft
    • Done
  • For consistency; 4× Fire-tube boilers, 1× Marine steam engine, 1× Screw propeller
    • Done
• Section 1
  • In the mid-1800s, as navies began to embark; it is a bit unclear here, I would suggest clarifying the region, for example, the world navies or the European navies.
    • "world navies" would be redundant to simply "navies"
  • Prussia would need long-range cruising vessels -> Prussia needed long-range cruising vessels or Prussia was in need of long-range cruising vessels
    • The conditional works better here - we're talking specifically about 1861, but the demands that would be placed on the Prussian fleet had not yet fully materialized
  • attacking enemy shipping
    • No, that would be incorrect - parallel structure requires the gerund, since we already have "showing the flag"
  • pair of crises? Please add more context
    • The whole rest of the paragraph is the context.
  • Link "Danes"
    • Not a useful link
  • In March that year; per MOS:DATEVAR, it is not required to mention again
    • No, it's not required, but it provides clarity - if the reader reads that Denmark started a naval construction program in 1861, and then reads that the Prussians started to respond in March, it would be a reasonable assumption to wonder what year that was, given that March is early in the year
  • 23 July 1861; per above
    • Done
  • The second paragraph, especially the last lines are not clear. It was said that the fleet plan called for twelve steam corvettes, then it was said that the Prussian Navy operated without any legal budget, and then the ships were ordered regardless of all these. I would suggest clarifying a few things at this stage (if possible)
    • Were all the twelve ships ordered, or only these two i.e. the Nymphe-class?
      • Clarified
    • If twelve were ordered, what about the other ten? A line or two about them would be helpful
      • No, this article is only about the first two
    • How was funding arranged? Are there any other sources?
      • Sondhaus doesn't go into detail
  • Characteristics; all units and conversion templates are good
  • by Prussia and "the" later unified Germany
    • Done
  • Later in her career; whose, Nymphe's or Medusa's
    • Should have been "their"
• Section 2; all good
• Section 3;
  • by a Danish frigate; Please mention the name, if available
    • Done
  • Check for consistency; "night attack" is Section 3, "nighttime attack" in lead
    • I don't think it's necessary to use the same word twice
  • the French admiral; Please mention the name, if available
    • Done
  • A comma (,) after "Yokohama, Japan"
    • Done
• Copyvio check, 1.0% confidence, no violation
• No dab links
• All images OK

@Parsecboy: Sorry for the delay, here are my comments. KCVelaga (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   KCVelaga (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)