Talk:SMS Zrinyi/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 17:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a nice article. I have a found a few instances where I had trouble understanding the prose:

• "During World War I, Zrínyi served with the Second Division of the Austro-Hungarian Navy's battleships and along with her sisterships Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand and Radetzky and the remainder of the Austro-Hungarian Navy, Zrinyi was mobilized on the eve of World War I to support the flight of SMS Goeben and Breslau, two German ships stationed in the Mediterranean who were attempting to break out of the strait of Messina, which was surrounded by British troops and vessels and make their way to Turkey." - this appears to be a run on sentence that I couldn't quite make sense of.

Tried to fix, now two sentances, see how it is. Buggie111 (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• "After the Germans successfully broke out of Messina, the navy was recalled, the fleet had by that time advanced as far south as Brindisi in south eastern Italy." - perhaps this just needs an "and".

I don't think so, as this is trying to say that, once the Germans broke out, Zrinyi was at such and such location when she was recalled. Could you write it with an and please? Buggie111 (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• "On May 24, 1915, Zrinyi and her sister ships bombarded the Italian coast, mainly the important naval base at Ancona, which was several days after the entrance of Italy into the war on the side of the Triple Entente." - just needs clarification

Clairfication on the date of entry? Buggie111 (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Under Postwar fate there are five very short paragraphs. Could some of them be combined for a more fluid read?

Done. Buggie111 (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Everything else looks fine! Xtzou (Talk) 17:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused: }

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Good work! Xtzou (Talk) 17:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)