Talk:Ottoman cruiser Berk-i Satvet

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ottoman cruiser Berk-i Satvet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 04:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Parsecboy, I will be completing a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime! -- Caponer (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Parsecboy, I have completed my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of your article, and I find that it easily meets or exceeds all the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Before its passage, however, I do have some comments and questions that must first be addressed. Thank you for all your hard work on this article. -- Caponer (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, 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):

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:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the cruiser, establishes the cruiser's necessary context, and explains why the cruiser is notable.
• The Berk-i Satvet class cruiser image is released into the Public Domain in the US, and because it is properly licensed, it is free to use in this article.
• I suggest linking first usage of Black Sea in the second paragraph, as our readers that are less geographically-inclined may be curious for context.

• It's linked in the first paragraph :)

• You're absolutely right! Sorry for overlooking its first mention! :) -- Caponer (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Otherwise, the lede is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Design

• Do we know what the namesake of the Berk-i Satvet is?

• According to this article, it translates to "Lightning of the Almighty" - I can check Langensiepen later today to see if it's mentioned there.

• This isn't a deal breaker, and falls outside the criteria for Good Article status, but I still recommend once this information is available that it should be added to the "Design" section.-- Caponer (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Inline citation, inline citations should be consolidated at the end of the sentences and paragraphs in numerical order. However, this is merely a suggestion as WP:INTEGRITY may allow the usage of inline citations within a sentence.
• sea trials should be wiki-linked in the first paragraph of this section, rather than in the first paragraph of "Service history" since they are mentioned here first when mentioning that she displaced 775 t during her trials.

• Good catch.

• Otherwise, this section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Service history

• The map of Ottoman holdings in the Balkans before the Balkan Wars has been released into the public domain and is therefore suitable for use in this article.
• Sea trials should be wiki-linked in the "Design" section, as it was the first mention, and de-linked here.

• Done per above

• Is there any more information available as to why the Ottoman fleet spent the Italo-Turkish War in port? It isn't necessary, but it wouldn't hurt to perhaps add some context as to why this cruiser remained in port during the conflict. If this information isn't available, this certainly isn't a deal-breaker, just a suggestion.:*I'd wager the High Command knew the fleet wouldn't have a chance against the much more powerful Italian fleet - they had 8 relatively modern battleships to 2 Ottoman ships that were older and in poor condition. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Ottomans initially assumed that the other Powers wouldn't tolerate the Italian aggression, and so weren't particularly prepared to put up significant resistance. I'll double check Langensiepen later to see if they address it.

• As stated above, this isn't a deal breaker for GA status, but once this information becomes available, I suggest adding a brief mention the text in "Service history" as to why the ship spent the war in port. -- Caponer (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Otherwise, this section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Balkan Wars

• I suggest mentioning that Şarköy is on the north coast of the Marmara Sea, which may provide context as to why the Bulgarians established positions there for control of the strategic waterway, and why it was crucial for the Berk-i Satvet to support the Ottoman amphibious assault there.

• Added, a good idea

• I also suggest quantifying the kilometer offshore by stating "one" rather than "a" kilometer.

• Sounds good to me

• Imbros, while in the Aegean Sea, also lies at the head of the Gulf of Saros, thus making it a strategic point. This may be worth mentioning.

• A good idea.

• De-link Black Sea in the second paragraph, as it is linked above in the main prose.

• Done

• Otherwise, this subsection is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.

World War I

• The image of silhouettes of the major warships of the Ottoman Navy in 1914 is released into the public domain and is therefore suitable for usage here.
• This subsection is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions regarding this subsection.

Later career

• This subsection is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions regarding this subsection.

• Parsecboy, thank you again for all your tremendous work on this article and for addressing each of my comments and questions in a timely manner. The only outstanding issues fall outside the parameters for Good Article status criteria, so I leave those with you as recommendations for the future as more information becomes available. In the meantime, I feel comfortable passing this to Good Article status! -- Caponer (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)