Talk:Scuttling of the German fleet at Scapa Flow/GA1

GA Review

I see a few things that need attention with this article, but nothing that would warrant me to fail this article automatically. Without further ado, here's what you need to do within 7 days:

• The lead section does not comply with WP:LEAD. This needs to be rectified.
• In reading the article I see that the remaining vessels are still on the bottom because of the depth at which they lay. Yet I see no mention of the actual depths.
• A map showing Scapa Flow and the particular location of Gutter Sound would be a very useful illustration for the article.
• Is there a chance of expansion in the Reaction section to include the other nations that participated in the Treaty of Versailles? (This is only a suggestion for future advancement to A-class and FA)

I will place this nomination on hold for up to 7 days to allow these to be dealt with. Please let me know if you need more time, and contact me on my talk page when you are finished. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As 7 days have gone by I am close to passing this article as a GA, but I have requested a second opinion by a more experienced reviewer to overcome any possible bias I may have since naval history is my primary editing focus even though I have not contributed to this article and I stick to American naval history over British and German. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Opinion Comments

Overall, this appears to be a well-written article that is very close to GA standards. I have just a couple of comments. Of course, since I am not the lead reviewer, the editors are welcome to accept or ignore these comments as they wish.

• More wikilinking in the second paragraph of the lede might be advisable. For example, "British", "salvaged", "scrapping", and "dive sites". These terms are something that some readers may not be familiar with, and so it is advisable to give them a place to go (by wikilinking to the appropriate article) to learn about the term.
  • I've linked a few more.
    • Looks good.
• In the "Background" section, wikilink "Armistice" in the first sentence. In the second to last sentence, you wikilink "still in a mutinous mood" to the Wilhelmshaven Mutiny, which MOS terms, if my memory serves me correctly, an "easter egg" link and recommends against. Instead, could you say something like, "the sailors were still in a mutinous mood from the Wilhelmshaven Mutiny" and wikilink the exact name?
  • Armistice is now linked (though it had been in already on the section earlier?), the suggested sentence doesn't read quite right, the mutinous mood was not because of the mutiny, but rather the mutiny was a cause of it. I linked mainly for background, but that'll probably get fixed in a future rewrite.
    • Oops, didn't see the armistice thing...I'd say still keep it linked just for when someone does the same thing I did :) I'm not totally seeing the different between your two statements on the mutiny. If x causes y, then isn't y because of x? Anyway, my wording wasn't set in stone, I just want you to mention the actual term of the Mutiny if you're going to link to it. MOS doesn't like you to MAKE a reader click on the wikilink to gain even a basic understanding of what the heck you're talking about. For example, it's sort of like me sending you to a page on my favorite animal. You have no idea what I'm talking about until you actually click on the link. However, if I said that my favorite animal was the Horse, then you would have at least a basic understanding that I wasn't talking about a Lion or a Tiger or an Ant. Do you see what I'm saying?
      • The general attitude is the grievances of the sailors (and in the general German population) at the end of the war, which led to a mutiny at Kiel, and the one at Wilhelmshaven. The German authorities were worried that the general dissatisfaction might cause further mutinies or refusal to obey orders, such as had already happened. I've clarified this a bit, and linked to the Wilhelmshaven mutiny by name as an example, but when I rewrite, I'll see if I can find a suitable bit of German Revolution of 1918–1919 to link to for an explanation of the attitudes and where they came from.
        • Ohhhhh...NOW I get it :) Thanks for the explanation, and the change looks good.
• In the "The fleet is scuttled" section, the quote at the end either needs a capital or "..." to start the quote.
  • Fixed
    • Looks good
• On references:
  • When you have the same reference for an entire paragraph, you do not need to repeat the citation in the middle of the paragraph. Just put one citation at the end of each paragraph.
    • I've always been strongly against that. Citing individually future-proofs against further editing (as is intended), and makes it easier to see where particular facts have been drawn from, as well as preventing a liberal sprinkling of fact tags (as well as making this article DYK compliant).
      • OK, your call. Not a huge deal. I think less refs make the text easier to read, but you do have a point.
  • There are two references listed in the "References" section that are not used in inline citations. Why?
    • As much as an aide memoir as anything else. This is still a work in progress.
      • Works for me.
  • Citations should be in numerical order, so [2][4], not [4][2].
    • Fixed
      • Looks good
  • Where was the information drawn from for the table detailing the fates of the ships? This should be referenced.
    • Referenced to a website, though it's also from some of the books, pending further research.
      • Err...I see that you've added a reference, but I think you added it in a hidden section, because I can't see it when I'm not in the edit screen. Would it be possible to find some way to make this visible?
        • Whoops, I stuck it on the end of the wrong bit of the table, (and knackered the formatting as well). It should now display where I meant it to, at the end of the 'fate' section.
          • Looks good.

As I said before, you are welcome to take these recommendations or not, but I believe that tweaking these few little things will push the article the last little bit that it needs to become GA. If you have any questions, please let me know here on this page (I have it watchlisted) or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reviews. To be honest, I wouldn't have put this forward for a GA review yet, I'm still planning more research and rewrites (though I'm flattered someone thought it might be good enough in its current state.) But I'm not particularly fussed if these objections are deemed sufficient from keeping it from GA status, as I'll put it forward again in my own time. Benea (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply and thoughtful responses. I sympathize on someone putting the article forward to quickly for your comfort, and think that you have done well in stepping up to take care of the concerns. Honestly, this article is a great candidate for GA. Most of the things I mentioned are minor sticking points, and I would pass the article as is. The lead reviewer will have to make that final decision though, my comments are simply in response to his request for a second opinion. You have done a wonderful job on this article, and I look forward to seeing it progress and maybe wind up at FA one day soon. Nice job! Dana boomer (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Pass

Since the second opinion has also recommended the passing of this article and the suggestions were implemented, I am listing this article as a good article. I would still like to see the map I mentioned in my original review. Also, if you have the opportunity, please take a moment and review at least one article here. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)