Talk:Magdeburg-class cruiser/GA1

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

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 19:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Status
This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s).
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Discussion
Regarding the failing point: Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) 2(a): the lead section is completely unreferenced. The already present references can be reused in order to address this shortcoming.
 * Lead sections do not require citations if the material is cited later in the body, see WP:LEADCITE. Parsecboy (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, it is not required, though I think it might be better to have at least something referenced.
 * If you are still convinced that nothing could be challenged in the lead, I would dismiss this notice and pass the article. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead is fine as is - standard practice is to omit citations in the lead for everything except possibly for DYK hooks. This is the way I've written scores of articles, including a couple dozen FAs, and it's never been an issue. Parsecboy (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments: Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Though it isn't required, I would suggest to port footnotes to sfn format in order to make the references easier accessed.
 * I don't like adding unnecessary templates to pages that already use a fair few; too many templates tend to slow down pages much worse than the additional characters do, especially on slower connections. Parsecboy (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really, as interclusions on Wikipedia are included in the document while it is generated from wiki code, so the templates result in the addition characters. Anyway, it was a suggestion, WP:MOS doesn't require sfn for WP:SFN. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, but the act of transcluding something onto a page usually slows down the page more than the simple coding. There have been numerous discussions on this in the past. The other issue is, I've been using this same citation format for 3 or 4 years now - I don't particularly feel like relearning the muscle memory for something of relatively minor benefit. Parsecboy (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)