Talk:SMS Kronprinz/GA1

(Redirected from Talk:SMS Kronprinz (1914)/GA1)
Latest comment: 14 years ago by AustralianRupert in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Technical review

edit
  • no dabs found by the tools.
  • No dabs;
  • No problems with ext links;
  • According to the tools, some of the images have alt text, but some don't. Its not a GA requirement, but I'd like to suggest that it could be added in.

Criteria

edit
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
  • "His Majesty's ship Crown Prince" in the lead, should this be "His Majesty's Ship Crown Prince"? Personally, I don't know;
  • there is a duplicate header - Operation Albion. Is there a reason for this?
  • in the References, the ISBN for Tarrant is hyphenated but the others aren't - for consistency of style I suggest removing the hyphens;
  • in the References, the Tarrant is the only work without full name and without a location. If possible can you add these in? If you don't have these details to hand, that's fine;
  • "German Imperial Navy" and "German Navy" - use of interchangable proper nouns. I think it would be okay to use interchangeable terms if one was a proper noun and the other wasn't, e.g. Imperial German Navy and German navy, but not when both are being used as proper nouns;
  • in the lead "She was torpedoed by the British submarine HMS J1 on 5 November 1916." I think this requires a modifier like "however" because the previous sentence seemingly contradicts this one (it doesn't , but to the lay person it will seem like that);
  • in the Service history section you have a wikilink to "High Seas Fleet", however, that should be removed and the term should be linked on first mention in the lead and in the Construction and design section;
  • in the Service history section, what was the consequence of this: "On 8 May an explosion occurred in the center turret's right gun"?
  • I suggest wikilinking "Grand Fleet" on first mention in the Service history section, as it might be confusing as to what this is;
  • I suggest wikilinking David Beatty in the Jutland section;
  • I suggest wikilinking terms like "pre-dreadnoughts" and "dreadnoughts" on first mention, as they would be unknown to most people;
  • in the Subsequent operations section, I suggest moving the wikilink you have for "Sunderland" to the first mention of it, which occurs earlier in the paragraph;
  • "Along with 9 light cruisers, 3 torpedo boat flotillas, and dozens of mine warfare ships, the entire force numbered some 300 ships, supported by over 100 aircraft and 6 zeppelins". Here I think you need to spell the values as they are under ten, for instance "9" should be "nine", "3" should be "three", etc.;
  • "Bayern was severely wounded..." perhaps consider using the word "damaged" instead of wounded? It is a machine after all (although, the navy blokes I know would take offence at that);
  • "On 18 October, Kronprinz was slightly grounded" - what was the consequence or solution to this? I take it she got off and continued operations, but it doesn't say this;
  • in the Fate section, I suggest wikilinking "Kaiser" (as in the person), in order to clarify who this was;
  • in the Fate section, "to seize the German ships on 21 June..." what year was this? (I assume 1919, but you might want to make this clear);
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  • the last part of the Fate section appears to be uncited. "The ship was never raised for scrapping, unlike most of the other capital ships that were scuttled. The rights to future salvage operations on the wreck were sold to Britain in 1962."
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  • Looks fine in this regard.
  • No problems that I can find.
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
  • There has been considerable recent work, but nothing that looks like an edit war to me.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned):   b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):   c (non-free images have fair use rationales):   d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':  
  • images appear to be appropriately licenced.
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:  
  • Overall I feel that this is very good article. There are a few things that I feel need to be done to bring this article up to GA status, however, I do not feel that these warrant a quick fail as I believe that they are able to be achieved within a suitable timeframe. As such I will place it on hold to see what changes are made before deciding upon the outcome. I'm prepared to accept any reasonable explainations of my concerns, and any changes will be taken into consideration, of course. Good work so far.
  • Please feel free to annotate on this page how you have addressed each of the concerns, either by responding on a new line below the comment or by placing the {{Done}} tags beside them, so I know where you are up to. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply