Talk:SMS Grille

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 07:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I will do this one. Zawed (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Not sure how you will have dealt with this on other ship articles but for the general characteristics infobox, I wonder if it is appropriate to have a note to the effect that these characteristics are as commissioned? Some change as a result of refits. And now I get down to the range info, which is actually for one of the later powerplants, not as originally commissioned - maybe the note should be applied only to that characteristic noting that this is in relation to a later powerplant?
  • Added a note and removed the range to avoid confusion
• "The hull was carvel built, and was constructed with transverse..."
  • Fixed
• "...but the ship was still without armament and the plan was abandoned.": what plan?
  • Must've gotten distracted while writing that and forgotten where I was
• "...as the flagship for the Prince Adalbert,..."
  • Fixed
• "...Crown Prince Friedrich boarded the ship..."?
  • Good catch
• "...though she met French vessels at sea only once, on 12 October, though they did not engage each other.": two thoughs relatively close together here, suggest rephrasing.
  • Tweaked
• "he next two years followed a similar pattern;..."; I'm not understanding the pattern here. Is it involved in May squadron manouevres and hosting royals or something to do with the commanders (implied by the use of ;).
  • Clarified
• "Grille was used in the first tests of an "electrical lighting apparatus""; I know it is linked but maybe clarify this is the searchlight referred to in the design section. Perhaps: "Grille was used in the first tests of an "electrical lighting apparatus", in the form of a searchlight mounted to the aft deckhouse..."?

Switched to just "searchlight" - I was feeling bemused by the phrasing in Hildebrand and thought it might convey the newness of the technology of the time, but I'm thinking better of it now

• "Another overhaul followed from 4 March to 10 April in Danzig"; what year is this? If 1905, there is a small overlap with the timeframe mentioned a couple of sentences previously.
  • Good catch, it's 1906
• "and servingserved in that role for the duration of the war"
  • Fixed
• References: the formatting of the isbn for Embree is inconsistent with the others and no need for Ltd to be part of publisher's name.
  • Fixed
• Images: I think the Kronprinz Friedrich.jpg should have a US tag on it. Shouldn't be any issue as it looks to have been published in 1896. The other images all have US tags at least.
  • Added
• No DABs, no dupe links.

Review comments done, will check back in a few days. Zawed (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Zawed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

This looks all good but your note for the infobox isn't showing up. Looks like you need an end note template added to display it. Once done, the article will be good to go. Zawed (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, right, I had meant to go copy over the formatting from another article and then apparently got distracted - should be ready now. Parsecboy (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

That's it, passing as a good article, I consider this meets the GA criteria. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed