Talk:SMS München/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 16:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this soon. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
"She was moored in Brunsbüttel with her sister-ship Danzig, en route to Kiel via the Kaiser Wilhelm Canal on the morning of 28 August 1914, when the British attacked the German patrol line in the Heligoland Bight." Should be two sentences I think. It just doesn't read well.
- Yeah, it's a pretty long sentence - split in half now.
" At 12:25, the two cruisers were ordered to steam out and support the cruiser Strassburg," - reptition of 'to steam out' I'd switch up the word choice.
- Good point - changed the second one to "move out into the Bight".
"Due to the long range and poor visibility, only München and SMS Stettin were able to engage the British cruisers; München fired 63 shells before she had to cease fire, without scoring any hits." - I know you hate citing when it comes from the same source, but this probably should be cited as it contains a direct reference to how many shells fired.
- Heh, I got around my peeve by splitting the ref a bit.
Other then that I do not see any concerns. What happened to the picture [1]? It has some serious distortion and damage, is that in the original? Placing it on hold for the issues, everything else is fine and I will pass it when you make the minor fixes. Again trivial stuff, I know. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SMS_Muenchen_Bain_picture.jpg){kind=link}
- I don't know, but it looks like it might be water damage, I'd guess on the original. Sometimes scans are bad (and for some reason, it seems to affect the Bain images - see for instance File:SMS Lothringen Bain picture.jpg, which also has some pretty bad damage). Parsecboy (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- PS. Are you sure that Munchen is the fourth ship? I thought Lübeck was. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, another one of these mistakes :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Looks good. I'll pass it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)