Talk:SMS Sperber (1888)/GA1

(Redirected from Talk:SMS Sperber/GA1)
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Dana boomer in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 23:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'll take this article for review, and should have my full comments up by later tonight. Dana boomer (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    • I'm sure you've checked the IP addition from April 5 to make sure everything is solid there?
    • Yeah, it's the standard note explaining SMS and the translation of the ship's name.
    • Lead, "but was thereafter used as a target ship until 1918. She was thereafter sold" - close repetition of "thereafter".
    • Changed the second one to "later"
    • Second deployment abroad, "presence was unnecessary there." I think the "there" is unnecessary.
    • Sounds fine to me.
    • Second deployment abroad, "German East Africa to replace Bussard there." Again, the "there" doesn't seem to be adding anything.
    • Removed.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    Overall very solid, just a few minor comments on prose. Placing the article on hold until these can be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks yet again, I think everything should be corrected. Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
    And again everything looks good, so passing to GA. Dana boomer (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply