Talk:SMS Kaiser Max (1862)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khanate General (talk · contribs) 16:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'll review this article within the next few days.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 16:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:SMS Prinz Eugen (1862).jpg
  • Missing source information. Also, the photo should be tagged PD-old-100 instead of PD-old-70.
    • Can't find the source of the photo, but I did one better - found an illustration of Kaiser Max instead, and that should be fine.
• File:Battle of Lissa - 1866 - Initial Situation.svg
  • Tagged correctly, but missing the date.
    • Added.

Close paraphrasing/copyvio review

• Earwig's Copyvio Detector reports that a copyright violation is unlikely.
• Random spot checks for close paraphrasing:
  • Tegetthoff received a series of telegrams between the 17 and 19 July notifying him of the Italian attack (article) versus On the 19th, a fresh telegram told him that the attack upon Lissa had recommenced that morning. (source)
    • No close paraphrasing detected.
  • The Austrian ironclad then Juan de Austria became surrounded by Italian ships, prompting Kaiser Max to come to her rescue (article) versus The Don Juan followed Tegetthof closely at the beginning of the fight, but quickly separated from him, and was surrounded by Italian ships, to be disengaged by the Kaiser Max (source)
    • No close paraphrasing detected.
  • Kaiser Max had emerged from the battle essentially undamaged, the Italian shells having been unable to penetrate her armor (article) versus The damage done to the Austrian ironclads was very slight. The Italian projectiles in no case went through their armour and backing
    • No close paraphrasing detected.
  • As a result, Austria, which became Austria-Hungary in the Ausgleich of 1867, was forced to cede the city of Venice to Italy (article) versus Italy left the postwar peace conference with only Venetia, which it would have received without fighting at all
    • No close paraphrasing detected.
  • Reconstruction projects were routinely approved by the parliament, so the navy officially "rebuilt" Kaiser Max and her sister ships. versus Called "re-building" for political purposes, the process in fact amounted to new construction. The old vessels were completely dismantled...
    • No close paraphrasing detected.

Spelling/grammar/MoS review

• Kaiser Max was rebuilt in 1867, particularly to correct her poor sea-keeping.
  • Change sea-keeping to seakeeping. Seakeeping is one word according to Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary.
    • Fixed, and linked.
• Her keel was laid in October 1861 at the Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino shipyard, she was launched in March 1862, and was completed in 1863.
  • Run-on sentence. Either change the comma after shipyard to a a semicolon or the split the line into two separate sentences.
    • I'm a sucker for semi-colons, so...
• By 1873, the ship was obsolescent and had a thoroughly-rotted hull
  • Change thoroughly-rotted to thoroughly rotted. Adverbs ending in -ly are never hyphenated.
    • Fixed
• the Austrian army was decisively defeated by Italy's ally Prussia at the Battle of Königgrätz
  • Change the passive-voice sentence to active voice (e.g. Italy’s ally Prussia decisively defeated the Austrian army at the Battle of Königgrätz).
    • Good point
• She proved to be very wet forward, owing to her open bow, and as a result, tended to handle poorly.
  • Remove the comma after forward, which isn't necessary, or consider splitting the sentence in two.
    • Fixed
• Tegetthoff brought the Austrian fleet to Ancona on 27 June, in attempt to draw out the Italians, but the Italian commander, Admiral Carlo Pellion di Persano, refused to engage Tegetthoff.
  • Indefinite article an or definite articlethe missing before the word attempt.
    • Good catch.

Other comments

• No disambiguation links.
• No broken external links.
• Article is neutral and stable.
• Coverage of the subject is broad and stays on topic.

Summary

Overall, this was a well-written and informative article. There were a few issues with the images and grammar, but they are easily fixable. Current assessment: . --Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 18:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your very thorough review! Parsecboy (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Excellent work. I have no other concerns, so I'm passing this GAN.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 21:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)