Talk:SMS Delphin

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Delphin (1860)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 02:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is in good shape. I just have a few comments/queries:

• suggest mentioning that the guns were muzzle-loading if they were. I'm a bit unclear about when breech-loading guns were introduced
  • Good idea
• suggest linking Ceremonial ship launching
  • Done
• speed trails? trials?
  • Good catch
• suggest linking Reserve fleet for laid up
  • Done
• were too far away to take part
  • Fixed
• suggest linking ship commissioning at first mention of recommissioning
  • Done
• Friedrich Wilhelm is introduced, but then referred to as Frederick Wilhelm a couple of times, suggest consistency
  • Fixed
• the image is appropriately licensed.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast review, PM. Parsecboy (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

No prob. This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, and is illustrated by an appropriately licensed image with an appropriate caption. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Lots of red links?

There are lots of red links in this article, which in itself isn't a major issue, but the one that strikes me in particular is the reference to Camäleon-class gunboat, which is used with the "main" template to suggest there is an article there for further reading.. there isn't.. it's a red link. Is there a typo in the name or is there simply no article for that? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bungle: I suspect this GA review was done hastily. In addition to the obvious problem you point out, there is a link to a disambiguation page (despite the GA toolbox including a checked for such links!). On top of that, the article is completely uncategorized. While it's possible to conclude a review in 8 hours, as was done here, care should be taken not to miss obvious steps. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Haste seems to be an appropriate descriptor in this case. The lack of categories is surely one that is more pressing, and i'd have personally seeked to have this addressed before the article was classed as GA (@Peacemaker67). Battleships isn't an area I am familiar with, though I just happened to observe in the GA noms page that this was passed quickly. @Parsecboy: Perhaps some obvious issues could be retro-spectively corrected? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these out - I've fixed the dab link and added categories; I'd forgotten to do the latter when I moved the article to main space. As for the link to Camäleon-class gunboat, this is a work in process - once I finish the drafts for Camäleon and Cyclop, I'm going to write up the class article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the lack of categorisation and the dab link, I obviously missed a couple of steps. I have GAN reviewed two previous ships in this class, which is why I picked it up and reviewed it so quickly. BTW redlinks are fine when the linked subject is likely to be notable, per WP:RED. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Redlinks are not fine in hatnotes, per WP:REDHAT, unless you plan to create the target article "immediately" (which I think denotes a time that is less that several hours, let alone days). Then again, it's not a major issue in my book. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: My initial comment referred specifically to the hatnote (sorry I couldn't remember the official name at the time). I did note red links in general aren't an issue, even if this article has a relatively high amount of them. A hatnote readlink, as I pointed out, really shouldn't be left as-is in my view. I think perhaps just bare a few things in mind for subsequent reviews, particularly the concerns addressed by Finnusertop. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created the class article, so all should be well now. Parsecboy (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)