Talk:HSwMS Gotland (1933)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 15:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Due to excellent work by Sturmvogel 66 as part of a endeavour to improve the quality of Swedish warship coverage, this article looks close to Good Article status already. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

 * The article is of significant length, with 1,858 words of readable prose.
 * The lead looks of an appropriate length at 144 words. Suggest merging the paragraphs as they are short.
 * 83.9% of authorship is by Sturmvogel 66.
 * It is currently assessed as a Start class article.
 * Suggest comma after "The design was then reduced in size requiring one of the forward turrets be removed".
 * Suggest comma after "By 1943, the Ospreys were worn out" as the next clause is independent.
 * Suggest rewording "Four twin-gun mounts for 56-calibre 40 mm (1.6 in) M/36 AA guns were installed on the former aircraft deck; the two rearmost on the centreline and one on each broadside further forward." for clarity.
 * There is a comment in the Talk page about a potential controversy about the Bismarck siting. I feel it is outside scope, but it could be worth mentioning in the text if there are reliable sources.

Assessment
The six good article criteria:
 * 1) It is reasonable well written.
 * the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
 * Please add "be" before "stowed below deck"
 * Remove duplicate "made" in "The ship made made her first foreign voyage".
 * Add comma after "Antwerp, Belgium"
 * These are now resolved. simongraham (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar issues.
 * it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
 * The layout is consistent with the relevant Manuals of Style, including a nice infobox.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * Looks good.
 * all inline citations are from reliable sources;
 * References seem credible, and a good mix between contemporary and more recent sources.
 * Spot check confirms Campbell 1985, Lagvall 1991 and Preston 2002 are relevant and discuss the topic.
 * WP:AGF for the offline sources.
 * it contains no original research;
 * There is no evidence of OR.
 * it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
 * Earwig gives a 2.0% chance of copyright violation, which means that it is extremely unlikely. The closest similarity is with a cited source. A cursory glance at some of the texts referenced not listed by Earwig confirms that there is no obvious close phrasing with offline material either.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage
 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
 * There is good coverage.
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * The article covers everything that needs to be covered.
 * 1) It has a neutral point of view.
 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
 * The text seems generally clear and neutral, including Preston's reflections as well as Swedish and English language sources.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * There is no evidence of edit wars.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
 * The infobox image has a relevant PD license.
 * The other images have appropriate PD or CC licenses.
 * images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * All images show views of the ship.

Excellent work. Only a few small points (incidentally, trying a new review style too). simongraham (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * All done, see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That all seems imminently satisfactory. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)