Talk:SMS Albatross (1907)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Albatross (1907)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 06:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll read through and review later today; I haven't done any ships for a while! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like another good naval article. A few minor points below. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

All looks good - passing as GA. cheers, Hchc2009 (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

• "She was returned to Germany in January 1919 and was sold for scrap and broken up in Hamburg." - might scan better as "She was returned to Germany in January 1919, was sold for scrap and broken up in Hamburg." - avoids repetition of "and"s
  • Sounds fine to me
• "Her crew numbered ten officers and 191 enlisted men" - minor, but would the MOS prefer this as "10 officers and 191 enlisted men" as it's comparing the two figures? (NB: I can't remember, but it rings a bell)
  • Good catch
• "she accidentally rammed the DDG Hansa steamer Wartburg that damaged her hull," - I think this should be "she accidentally rammed the DDG Hansa steamer Wartburg, damaging her hull," (the "that" doesn't parse)
  • Sometimes this happens when I'm translating German...
• "For Albatross, 1912, 1913, and the first half of 1914 passed uneventfully, in the same routine as the previous three years." - this read oddly to me (but might just be me!). Are the three years in question 1908-11?
  • Yes, that's right - see if what I changed it to is clearer.
• "After arriving, Albatross laid a single mine field that was eleven miles long" - needs a metric equivalent
  • Added
• "meaning that the gun is 45 times long as it is in diameter" - would "meaning that the gun is 45 times long as its diameter" be shorter?
  • Good idea

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• Looks good. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

• In the bibliography, "Cassell and Company, ltd" - probably should be "Cassell and Company, Ltd"
• Should "Gotlands fornsal" be capitalised as "Gotlands Fornsal"? (this seems to be the typical English capitalisation for the publisher?)
• Minor (not a GA point) but "Germany's High Seas Fleet in the World War" lacks a publishing location (I suspect it's New York and London).
  • All three fixed.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

• Looks good. Hchc2009 (talk)

(c) it contains no original research.

• None found so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

• Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

• Appears neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• File:SMS Albatross in port.jpg needs an appropriate date (creation or publication) or an alternative explanation to justify the US PD tag. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Per the general disclaimer, "Most of the photos found in our collection are in the public domain and may be downloaded and used without permissions or special requirements (those which are not will be noted in the copyright section of the image description)." There's no such notice on the NHHC file page, so it should be fine in the US. It could well be copyrighted in Germany, since their term is PMA+70, and someone taking photos in the 1910s could well have lived into the 1950s, so that's why it's on en.wiki and not Commons.

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Look good. Very minor, and not a GA requirement, but you use "Albatross" in one caption, and "SMS Albatross" in another. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Good catch, removed the SMS. Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)