 | SMS Meteor (1865) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
 | SMS Meteor (1865) is part of the Camäleon-class gunboats series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Meteor (1865)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 18:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: - wonder if you've lost track of this? Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm happy to take over this one -- give me a day or two... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Toolbox checks -- no dab or EL issues.
Prose -- copyedited a bit so let me know if I altered meaning accidentally; otherwise no concerns.
Structure -- in keeping with similar articles.
Detail -- seems sufficient for GA-level; no obvious or major gaps.
Images -- licensing looks fine for second image but I believe we need a US PD tag for the top one.
Referencing -- fully cited and no concerns with ref reliability; one formatting issue that I dealt with.
Summary -- ready to pass, just the image tag needed I think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Ian - I'd think the {{PD-US}} tag should work, as I don't think anyone would argue that Parlow was painting more than 22 years after he died ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Ian Rose: - can you let me know if there's anything else that needs to be addressed? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ugh, sorry Nate, this one slipped through the cracks -- passing now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- P.S. Glad it didn't affect the results of last month's contest -- I guess now you have a few points for this month's that you may not have planned on... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Very true! Thanks Ian :) Parsecboy (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- P.S. Glad it didn't affect the results of last month's contest -- I guess now you have a few points for this month's that you may not have planned on... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ugh, sorry Nate, this one slipped through the cracks -- passing now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Ian Rose: - can you let me know if there's anything else that needs to be addressed? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Battle of Havana
editI removed a statement from the article which claimed this was the sole combat between the German and French navies during the war. This falseity is often repeated in various english language sources, but there were in fact other naval engagements between the two navies in the Baltic Sea during the War. Unlike the rest of the North German Navy, the North German Baltic squadron was quite active in opposing the French blockade engaging Édouard Bouët-Willaumez's squadron indecisively on various occasions. See page 95 of Sondhaus, Lawrence (1997): Preparing for Weltpolitik: German Sea Power Before the Tirpitz Era. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 978-1-55750-745-7. XavierGreen (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)