Talk:Ottoman ironclad Asar-i Tevfik/GA1
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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)
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)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- 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)