Talk:SMS Custoza/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 01:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Section 1

• Para 1; sentence 2; In the sentence which of the two vessels was built smaller, Custoza or Erzherzog Albrecht or both? Please clarify.
  • Should be clear now.
• Para 2; last sentence; Remove the dup-link of Erzherzog Albrecht as it was linked in first para of the same section.
  • Done.

Section 1.1

• Para 1; sentence 3; It is mentioned that the displacement varied from 7,609 t (...) to 7,730.99 t (...), but in the infobox it was precisely mentioned as 7,609 metric tons, why is this contradiction? Could it be clarified in the prose and corrected accordingly in the infobox.
• Para 1; last sentence; Same as the above concern, contradiction between prose (548 to 567) and infobox (548) about the crew.
  • I simply forgot to add those figures to the infobox - both fixed.

Section 2

• Para 3; Remove the dup-links of Tegetthoff and Adriatic as they were already linked in the 2nd para of the 1st section.
  • Fixed
• Para 4; sentence 1; What is "II Reserve"?
  • It's a unit name - there's no article to link to, unfortunately.

Section 4 (references)

• Please consider using ISBN-13 for the third reference to maintain consistency. It is 9780851771335, you could verify and put in the place.
  • Done

Lead

• Sentence 1; Why is the ship "the only member of her class"? Erzherzog Albrecht is too of the same class. I forgot to check this in the prior review of Erzherzog Albrecht, it's lead also contains the same.
  • They aren't the same ship class - their designs are similar in conception, but they differ significantly in just about every way.
• The fate "field" of infobox shows "Ceded to Italy, 1920, fate unknown", but it was clearly mentioned in the lead and the prose that the vessel was brokenup for scrap by Italy.
  • Good catch, I forgot to update that after adding the line from Greger.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for another review! Parsecboy (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2016 (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:

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)