Talk:Ottoman ironclad Asar-i Tevfik

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ottoman ironclad Âsâr-ı Tevfik/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 15:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Parsecboy, I will complete 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! Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Parsecboy, I've finished my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I assess that it meets the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Before its passage, however, I have shared below some comments and questions that must first be addressed. Thanks again for all your hard work on this article! -- Caponer (talk) 15:52, 22 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 ironclad, establishes the ironclad's necessary context, and explains why the ironclad is notable.
• In the introduction sentence, I would format it as such: Âsâr-ı Tevfik (Ottoman Turkish: "God's Favor")[1] was an ironclad warship of the Ottoman Navy built in the 1860s...
  • Sounds good to me.
• Reword the sentence: "While operating against Bulgarian positions in February 1913, she ran aground; after which, Bulgarian field artillery shelled the ship." Or something like this.
  • How about inserting "...artillery then shelled..."?
• The image of the Ottoman Ironclad Asar-i Tewfik is released into the public domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
• The info box is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the referenced cited therein.
• 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

• Should the first sentence specify that it was an entire squadron of the Ottoman Navy?
  • Sure
• The image of the line-drawing of Âsâr-ı Tevfik '​s original configuration is released into the public domain and is free for use here.
• 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 image of Âsâr-ı Tevfik as originally built is released into the public domain and is therefore free to use here.
• Add comma after "In June" in the second paragraph of the Russo-Turkish War subsection.
  • Done
• "On the night of 23–4 August 1877" should be "On the night of 3–4 August 1877."
  • No, it's the 23rd and 24th - but fixed now.
• 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.
• Under the First Balkan War subsection, the times should be specifically mentioned as being A.M.
  • The article uses 24-hour time (see for instance the 13:00 referenced in that section)
• The painting depicting the Greek fleet during the Battle of Elli is released into the public domain and is free to use here.

• Parsecboy, you've done it again sir. Congratulations on a job well done. I hereby pass this article to Good Article status! -- Caponer (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)