Talk:Regele Ferdinand-class destroyer/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 02:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I will take a look at this one. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

General comments: G'day, Sturm, this looks pretty good. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * the information in the infobox is supported by the body except:
 * being preceded by the Vifor class
 * Not sure if this one was dealt with? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't think that it needs citing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * being succeeded by Mărășești
 * Had to delete Marasesti since she was a frigate, but I've never cited preceding or succeeding class before
 * this seems slightly contradictory: "decided to order a pair..." v. "Four destroyers were intended to be ordered, but only two were actually built"
 * I think that they'd planned to build two pairs at a time, but ran out of money before the second pair was ordered. But nobody actually says this.
 * Perhaps change the first part to "the Romanian Government decided to order several modern destroyers". Would that work? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * the table in the Ships section appears to be unreferenced
 * Oops
 * the article appears to use British English variation, but I see at least one instance of "defense"
 * That one always slips by; it's nowhere near as obvious as the extra u in many words.
 * On 26 June 1941, shortly after the Axis invasion...: perhaps clarify Romania's alignment with Germany here?
 * Axis linked in the lead. Is that not clear enough?
 * Ok, no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * link Operation Barbarossa
 * Thought I had, but obviously not!
 * Massively outnumbered by the Soviet Black Sea Fleet: link Black Sea Fleet?
 * Linked in the lede.
 * is there any information that can be added about what the ships did between 1930 and 1937, or between 1937 and 1941?
 * Not in anything available to me.
 * Ok, no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * on a Romanian minefield --> "in a Romanian minefield"?
 * Romanians began laying minefields: move the link for minefield to the first mention
 * After Sevastopol surrendered --> "After the Soviet garrision at Sevastopol surrendered"?
 * encircled Sevastopol during April --> "encircled Axis troops in Sevastopol during April"?
 * their attacks so damaged her fuel system that she... --> "their attacks damaged her fuel system to the extent that she..."?
 * "Monakov & Rohwer" in the citations, but it is reverse order in the Bibliography
 * Good catch.
 * on face value the sources look reliable, although I wonder if you could tell me something about "Sakhapoligrafizdat"?
 * Not much, but it's not Samizdat ;-) A lot of the good post-Cold War Soviet naval history is coming from small presses of which I presume that this is one.
 * I see quite a few entries on worldcat for the publisher, and Google Scholar also has quite a few entries: . So it is probably okay. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * the Earwig tool reported no copyright violations likely: (no action required)
 * the source link for "File:RegeleFerdinand1935.jpg" appears to be a dead link
 * Replaced
 * same as above for "File:RegeleFerdinand1930-1944.jpg"
 * Can't find an alternative source, but I don't think that it matters given the non-existent copyright on Romanian photos.
 * Unfortunately, the throughlink at the Wayback machine isn't helping, either. I guess it's a permanent deadlink. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest removing the header "External links", or adding a couple of links. Per the guidance at MOS:LAYOUTEL, the Commons link shouldn't sit in an EL section by itself
 * Added. Thanks for giving this a look. You've been missed. See if my changes work for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Criteria
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues detected. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Article appears stable and isn't subject to a current edit war. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail: