Talk:SMS Prinz Adalbert (1901)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Nice work! Good to see these older ACs getting some attention. I do have a few quibbles with the prose, though; to wit:

   • "She" is used throughout - I seem to recall that German ships were actually referred to using the masculine pronoun?

   • I see your point, but I think "he" would be jarring to most readers. Parsecboy (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   • Fair point, and I believe most non-German references use "She". Might be worth pondering for ACR or FAC though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   • "After her sister was sunk in November 1914" - aside from puny pronouns, I think this might read better as "...sister ship was sunk..."?

   • Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   • "including bombardments of the port of Libau" - looks a little odd to my eye. Would "...including several bombardments..." work, perhaps? Or just "...bombarding the port..."?

   • I used the second suggestion. Parsecboy (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   • "Prinz Adalbert was ordered under the provisional name "B"" - wasn't that Ersatz "B"?

   • Nope, see the footnote after the sentence - "new" ships were given the single letter designation, only those replacing old vessels (thus ersatz) were ordered as "Ersatz whatever". Parsecboy (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   • Huh. I could have sworn I've seen the "Ersatz [Letter]" format before. Of course that might have been in Jane's Frightening Slips... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   • "Fitting-out work was somewhat lengthy, completed by 12 January 1904, the day she was commissioned into the Imperial German Navy." - this reads a bit oddly to me. Perhaps there's a "but" missing. And the commissioning date being the completion date seems slightly redundant - is there a way to better word this?

   • One of those instances where I rewrote the first half of the sentence and forgot to make sure it agreed with the second half. I also added a note for comparison with Friedrich Carl. On your second point, I've never been able to find a solution to that that I liked. I'm open to suggestions :) Parsecboy (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   • Heh. Been there, done that. And maybe "...being comissioned into the [KM] the same day" might work? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   • Is there any information on the results of the sea trials? No problem if there isn't.

   • None that I've seen - some of the old naval annuals reference the ship having completed trials, but give no details other than top speeds reached (which is already mentioned in the Construction section). Parsecboy (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   • Clearly we need to hijack a TARDIS the next time the Doctor stops by. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   • "After her sister, Friedrich Carl was sunk" Another case where "sister" should probably be "sister ship"? Also seems to be missing a comma.

   • Fixed as above. Parsecboy (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   • "The ship was repaired, however" - might read better as "After being freed from [her] grounding, the ship was repaired..."?

   • Added. Parsecboy (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   • "The sinking was the greatest single loss of life for the Baltic forces for the duration of the war." - Might want to clarify that it was Germany's Baltic forces. Unless it was also including Russian losses?

   • Good call. Parsecboy (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Suitably referenced; could stand with a few more inline cites but not strictly necessary. References used are all A++ quality, and not the slightest whiff of OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers the ship well, although (as noted) something about the sea trials, if available, might be nice, although it's not a holdup if it isn't. Tells the story of the ship well, the bit about the Baltic explains why the ship went on the missions it did.

   See above. Parsecboy (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No POV issues whatsoever.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Freshly expanded, but has no reverts or edit-warring.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Both images are free-use and appropriately tagged as such, with suitable captions

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm putting this article On Hold for the moment while the issues I've mentioned above are addressed or resolved. It's a nice read and it's always good to read about these ships that sailed in the final days of "iron men"! Shouldn't be too much trouble to get it passed in a jiffy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   Nice work, and thanks for getting on this so fast! There's the completion/commissioning thing, but that's a stylistic choice. So I'm declaring this as being passed for GA. Keep up the good work! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   Can I suggest that as part of promoting an article to GA, any stub tags get removed from it? Schwede66 21:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)