Talk:SMS Schleswig-Holstein/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
A few clarifications are needed
I saw only one clarify tag, does what I added make it clear? Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
I dunno how good your German is, but there a book dedicated to this ship: Linienschiffe Schleswig-Holstein. Maybe it has some good info on her fate because Nauck quotes several sources as saying that she was scuttled on 21 March '45.
There are actually several books on this ship (1, 2, 3), but no US library appears to have a copy of them, or at least according to Worldcat anyway.

As for the scuttling on 21 Mar, Groner mentions that (not sure how I missed that before). Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a copy of Linienschiff Schleswig-Holstein : Flottendienst in drei Marinen at Vanderbilt under 75350253. Gotta check every edition, that's one of the PitA's with OCLC. I won't hold things up at this level, but I'd strongly suggest that you get it before the ACR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Is there a typo in the dates in the second para of the WWI section? The first para of the Interwar years has a bunch of extraneous material on her sisters as well as some clumsy phrasing. Add conversions for the armor in the infobox. Add engine and boiler info to the infobox.
Yes, it should be 1915, not 16. I added conversions and engine info to the infobox. Does the Interwar section look better now? Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the infobox for a ship article should be as complete as the class article. I just copy over the latter and adjust for the individual ship. And it does read better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's usually what I do too, but I apparently forgot in this case. Parsecboy (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Any pictures available from WWI, before her rebuilds?
None that I've seen that could be proved to be PD. All of the Bundesarchiv photos on Commons are Reichsmarine or after. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

You're missing a couple of publisher locations in your refs, but you've got time to fix those.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]