Talk:SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gatoclass (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Initial comment: This looks good to me. I just need a little more time to go through it and check that there are no outstanding issues. Gatoclass (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   She then replaced her sister Kaiser Friedrich III as the squadron flagship, under the command of Prince Heinrich, which had to be docked for repairs - Which ship was under the command of Heinrich? I think that needs to be clarified. Also, I'm not sure what "Marine-type" boilers are, do you have any more info on this? Gatoclass (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

   I reworded the line, how does it look now? As for the boilers, for some reason Groener refers to them as "Marine-type boilers," what he means is just "naval boiler." Parsecboy (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

   The reword looks fine. I don't know what a "naval boiler" is either, but I'm not going to hold up the nom just over that. Gatoclass (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance:

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:

   Would be nice to have a little more detail about the ship's service in the Baltic in WWI. Gatoclass (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

   I know, but it just isn't out there. I've trawled through Google Books for wartime publications, and there isn't much concerned with these ships. Paul Halpern's A Naval History of World War I, which does a pretty good job of covering the Baltic, doesn't mention Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse or any of her sisterships at all. Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

   Okay, just thought I'd ask. Gatoclass (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

1. B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

4. 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 tweaked the caption to clarify that it's an image of a sister ship, not Kaiser Wilhelm herself. If that's okay with you we can tick this one. Gatoclass (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

   Seems fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

5. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Perhaps a tad shorter than the ideal GA, but all aspects are adequately covered, the prose is straightforward and concise, and the article as a whole is well presented. Gatoclass (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

Please change the name Wilhelm der Grosse to Wilhelm der Große (or at least mention it as the original German spelling, possibly with a hyperlink to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9F). 62.195.163.234 (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, and English does not use the eszett. There already is a note to that effect. Parsecboy (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)