Talk:John Ericsson-class monitor/GA1

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

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Given the size of the article, the lede could stand to be slightly larger; if not another paragraph, then a few more sentences
 * See how it works now.
 * Do we have a source actually stating that the ironclads were named after Ericsson? I mean it's obvious, but having something would be nice.
 * Done
 * 'Generally the monitors were kept in reserve for most of the year' - I would modify this to read 'the majority of each year' as it took me a few seconds to realize you meant a typical year, and not a specific one.
 * Agreed
 * 'She was rearmed with the 240-millimeter M/76 guns in 1881, her original Dahlgren guns became part of the Ericsson monument at Filipstad, and she was reactivated in 1882 and 1883, but only sporadically thereafter' - Run-on sentence, and you need an 'and' before 'her original'
 * That does run on, doesn't it. Broken up.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I can see why Mjolnir's details are in the latter section of the article, and although it looks out of place it seems like the best place for it. However, is there any context for why she was built? Was it because of the Personal Union - did the Norwegians simply copy what the Swedish did, perhaps influenced by the Parliamentary committee?
 * I'm not sure, there's not good coverage on the Norwegian ships in English. I have a friend who's looking into them using Norwegian sources.
 * The note seems out of place, as the sentence it is at the end of seems to have little connecting it to the note, especially as the Skorpien-class vessels haven't been mentioned before. This needs clarifying at the very least, with some more context in the sentence it is cited to.
 * How does it read now?
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Nice article, quite detailed for a class that saw no combat. A few changes, primarily that note, and it'll be good to go. Skinny87 (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. The Norwegian details aren't a major issue, especially if, as you say, details in English are difficult to come by. Given that there are at least details of the ship and its fate, it's not like there is no context. Some more would be good, but for GA this isn't a major issue so I'll pass now. Skinny87 (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)