Talk:SMS Kaiser Karl der Grosse

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Be sure to give the spelling with and without the ß. You might have to do it in a note. Kaiser Wilhelm der Große? You're using the ship's name a bit much in the first Construction para. Mix it up a bit more with she, or the ship, etc.

   Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

   This is what I was talking about: These were immediately followed by the five Kaiser Friedrich III class battleships, of which Kaiser Karl der Große was a member.[1] Kaiser Karl der Große's keel was laid in 1898 at the Blohm and Voss in Hamburg under construction number 136.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

   Changed the second instance to "the ship." Parsecboy (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance:

   I fixed the adjective for the conversion in the lede. I noticed this in the other ship of this class that I did, you should fix this for the other articles. Only two columns allowed for notes according to MOS.

   I'll take a look at the other articles. As for the reflist, I normally use just 2 columns on the template, but someone changed it on a recent FAC (can't remember what article or when), and so I've been using it as well. Can you point me to the relevant section in the MOS? This seems to say that it's fine as it is. Parsecboy (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

   Looks like it's another changed in the MOS revision. Multiple columns it is.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

   Yeah, it's hard to keep track of all of the MoS changes. Parsecboy (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Was she oil or coal fired?

   Specified. Parsecboy (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

   I gather that no pictures of the ship herself are available?

   None that I've been able to find, and I've trawled through old naval annuals and the like on Google Books. Parsecboy (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

   I figured as much.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Past tense in footnote about ship name

In German, the ship's name was rendered with an eszett, as Kaiser Karl der Große.

Why the was? German orthography hasn’t changed on this, any contemporary text mentioning the ship’s name would still spell it with a „ß“. —Galaktos (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Also, there's no need to render the name of the ship in french-fried English (Charlemagne is French; literal English would be "Charles the Great"), as the ship was never known by an English name, even to the Brits. Sca (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)