Talk:SMS Württemberg (1917)

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Zawed in topic GA Review
Good articleSMS Württemberg (1917) 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.
Featured topic starSMS Württemberg (1917) is part of the Battleships of Germany series, a featured 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 27, 2020Good article nomineeListed
February 8, 2020Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Württemberg (1917)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 22:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I will take this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lead

edit
  • No issues identified

Development

edit
  • additional funds for the Navy: suggest "additional funds for the Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy)". The term is used in the lead but not main body of article.
    • Good idea
  • As work on the last member of the class began: I think it needs to explicitly specify at this point that Württemberg is that last member.
    • Done
  • to take advantage Wilhelm's good mood: should that be "to take advantage of Wilhelm's good mood"?
    • Good catch

Description

edit
  • Inconsistency in text and infobox as to number of 8.8cm guns.
    • Corrected
  • Ditto for the minimum armor thickness for the turrets.
    • Fixed
  • No mention of cruising range in body of article.
    • Added

Construction and cancellation

edit
  • No issues identified

References

edit
  • Hildebrand et al: no isbn?
    • Not that I can find. Curiously, the books don’t have them printed, and there’s no entry in Worldcat for the 8th volume.

Other stuff

edit
  • Image tags check out OK
  • No dupe or dab links
  • No external links so checks for these not necessary

A tidy article with minimal issues. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm satisfied that this article meets the GA criteria, passing as GA now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply