Talk:SMS Budapest/GA1

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 23:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough
On a first pass, this looks like strong stuff: well written, organized, and sourced. I've done some minor copyedits as I went, so please check my work to make sure I didn't accidentally introduce errors into the article.


 * The article appears to switch between using roman numerals (I. division) and Arabic (1st division). The latter seems much clearer to me as a reader, but whichever is preferred, it should be made consistent in the article. I changed the first instance of this, but on seeing another (V.) realized I should leave this to you to determine.
 * Good catch. Standardized
 * "Both ships were fitted with a 66-millimeter (2.6 in) anti-aircraft gun" -- this should probably be "both ships were fitted with 66-millimeter (2.6 in) anti-aircraft guns" or "each ship was fitted with a 66-millimeter (2.6 in) anti-aircraft gun"
 * Fixed
 * "knocked out" -- slightly idiomatic-- how about "destroyed"?
 * Knocked out is what my source uses so I don't know if the guns were destroyed. But I could use "silenced" if you'd prefer.
 * No, that's fine. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Greger and Sieche (1985) are listed in the references section but don't appear to be cited in the article.
 * One deleted and the other moved to a further reading section. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting to these so quickly! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)