Talk:Yugoslav submarine Osvetnik/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 20:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Peacemaker67, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I find that it meets all the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I have shared below some comments and questions that should first be addressed. Thanks again for all your hard work on this article! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

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:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the submarine, establishes the submarine's necessary context, and explains why the submarine is otherwise notable.
• The info box for the submarine is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the referenced cited therein.
• It's a pity there is no free image of the Osvetnik in the info box, but this is not a deal breaker for GA.
• The lede could stand to include more information from the Description subsection, such as mentioning her partial double hull design.
• The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

History
Description

• It should be mentioned in this section that Osvetnik means Nemesis in the Serbian language. (Or is Osvetnik a word from another one of the Yugoslav kingdom's languages?)
• This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.

Construction

• Should Maschinenfabrik be spelled out either in parentheses after "MAN" or with "MAN" in parentheses after Maschinenfabrik?
• Osvetnik should be mentioned at least once in this subsection, rather than exclusively referring to her as "she."
• This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.

Career and fate

• I suggest adding the accent for "attaché" in the first paragraph.
• It should be mentioned briefly with either the first or second mention of the Bay of Kotor that it is a bay of the Adriatic Sea to provide greater geographical context.
• In the last sentence, I suggest adding a comma after "On 14 September 1943."
• There should be a wiki-link to Scuttling in the prose for those readers not familiar with this act of deliberately sinking a ship.
• This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.

Thanks very much for the detailed review, West Virginian! I have been unable to locate a free image, but will keep looking. Otherwise, all your points have been addressed. My edit are here. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, thank you tremendously for your timely response to my above comments and concerns regarding this article. Upon my re-review of the article, I find that you've adequately addressed my concerns and it is hereby a privilege for me to pass this article to Good Article status! Congratulations on another job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)