Talk:SMS Don Juan d'Austria (1875)

SMS Don Juan d'Austria (1875) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

SMS Don Juan d'Austria (1875) is part of the Ironclads of Austria-Hungary series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 29, 2016	Good article nominee	Listed
December 22, 2018	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SMS Don Juan d'Austria (1875) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Maritime / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	European military history task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

GA Review

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Don Juan d'Austria (1875)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 00:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well constructed, will get back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Section 1

Para 2; Sentence 1; There is comma(,) missing after the word "Krupp" in "....al.) guns manufactured by Krupp".
- Added
Para 3; sentence 1; The word "protection" may be removed because the word "armor" itself means something that was made to protect the body. It need not be followed by protection again.
- Done.

Section 2

Para 2; At the begining of the paragraph, the year was mentioned as 1880. But in the later sentences, it was mentioned that the ship attended the opening ceremony of Barcelona Universal Exposition that took place in 1888. At this instant the year 1888 was not mentioned. So a general reader may understand that the BUE also happened in 1880. So please mention the year in the sentence Barcelona Universal Exposition was put in.
- Good point - I think that got left out during a rewrite of the sentence.
Para 3; sentence 4; De-link "Pola" from its article, which creates a dup link as it was already linked in last sentence of first para in the section.
- Fixed.

Lead

There is comma(,) missing after "1904" in the last but one sentence.
- I don't think it's necessary there, actually.

References

It is not necessary to mention the page numbers in ref section, because they were already mentioned while citing the book in inline citations i.e notes section.
- Generally when you cite an article, you should include the page numbers of the article
In the case of 7th citation (notes section) i.e "Naval and Military Notes", p. 412 and 4th reference in the reference section having page numbers ranging from 409–427 contradict each other. I suggest removing the page numbers from the reference section.
- See above.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for another review! Parsecboy (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic