Talk:SMS Bremse/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 23:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
 * Disambiguations: one dab link :
 * Trawler
 * Linkrot: External links all check out (no action required).
 * Alt text: images lacks alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working. Spot checks reveal no issues (no action required).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Date format and prose here: "In October 11–20 1916, Bremse and Brummer served with the High Seas Fleet in the North Sea...", consider rewording to "Over the period 11–20 October 1916, Bremse and Brummer served with the High Seas Fleet in the North Sea
 * This is a little unclear: "this would hamper evading Allied ships at night." I assume you mean that the sparks would hamper the ability of the German ships to evade Allied ships, is that correct?
 * Perhaps consider adding the undefined undefined template here: "sank in 75 feet of water at 14:30."
 * Should all be fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Good use of WP:RS, with all main points appropriately cited.
 * No issues with WP:OR as far as I can see.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * "Though the Admiralty arranged for some of the ships to be salvaged, most were left at the bottom of the sound until entrepreneur Ernest Cox bought the salvage rights and began to raise the remaining ships." When? You only talk about the date of these events in the paragraph below this one, which detracts from the context a little IMO.
 * Unfortunately, I don't have access to George or Booth, which were used in an older version of the article. None of the books I have discuss when work actually started (or are somewhat contradictory). Parsecboy (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy with your changes. Anotherclown (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issue with POV.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues here.


 * 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':
 * Images are all either PD or appropriately licensed.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Article meets all the criteria IMO. Just a couple of very minor fixes required before it can be promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All issues dealt with, so I'm passing this review now. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)