Talk:SMS Friedrich Carl (1867)/GA1
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Sturmvogel 66 in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- some publishers need location.
- Added. Parsecboy (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- some publishers need location.
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- Were the guns rifled muzzle-loaders or breech-loaders?
- Groner doesn't say (and it's hard to tell - the Prussian Army made the switch to breech-loading guns at least as early as the Austro-Prussian War, but I don't know when the Navy did). Conway's has even less information on the guns, and Navweaps doesn't go back that far. I'd wager that they were breech loaders, but that's just a guess. Parsecboy (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough.
- Groner doesn't say (and it's hard to tell - the Prussian Army made the switch to breech-loading guns at least as early as the Austro-Prussian War, but I don't know when the Navy did). Conway's has even less information on the guns, and Navweaps doesn't go back that far. I'd wager that they were breech loaders, but that's just a guess. Parsecboy (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Were the guns rifled muzzle-loaders or breech-loaders?
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Pics?
- None that I could find. Unfortunately, these old ships predate most of the naval annuals and the like where you could find PD-US photos or illustrations. I suppose I could claim fair use on a linedrawing from Conways or Groner. Parsecboy (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Pictures available on Commons of all three, albeit some with uncertain sourcing. I'm not really gonna get too worked up them if that's the case.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Same as the Prinz Adalbert image, there's no source so we can't use it, not even as fair use. Parsecboy (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- A fair-use image would be good regardless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Same as the Prinz Adalbert image, there's no source so we can't use it, not even as fair use. Parsecboy (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Pictures available on Commons of all three, albeit some with uncertain sourcing. I'm not really gonna get too worked up them if that's the case.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- None that I could find. Unfortunately, these old ships predate most of the naval annuals and the like where you could find PD-US photos or illustrations. I suppose I could claim fair use on a linedrawing from Conways or Groner. Parsecboy (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Pics?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
