Talk:SMS Drache (1861)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 02:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Will come back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Section 1; para 1; There are many consistency errors in the the para and the infobox. Here goes the list:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Parameter !! Prose !! Infobox
 * Length ||70.1 meters (230 ft 0 in)|| 62.78 m (206 ft 0 in)
 * Length ||70.1 meters (230 ft 0 in)|| 62.78 m (206 ft 0 in)


 * Beam || 14 meters (45 ft 11 in)|| 13.94 m (45 ft 9 in)
 * Beam || 14 meters (45 ft 11 in)|| 13.94 m (45 ft 9 in)


 * Draft|| 6.8 meters (22 ft 4 in)|| 6.3 m (20 ft 8 in)
 * Draft|| 6.8 meters (22 ft 4 in)|| 6.3 m (20 ft 8 in)


 * Displacement|| 2,824 long tons/3,110 long tons|| 2,707 long tons
 * Displacement|| 2,824 long tons/3,110 long tons|| 2,707 long tons


 * Indicated HP|| 1,540 kW||1,374 kW
 * Indicated HP|| 1,540 kW||1,374 kW


 * Speed||10.5 knots (19.4 km/h; 12.1 mph)||11 knots (20 km/h; 13 mph)
 * Speed||10.5 knots (19.4 km/h; 12.1 mph)||11 knots (20 km/h; 13 mph)


 * }
 * Please correct these. And also mostly in many of other ship articles of Austia-Hungary (mostly done by you), used the displcament format as XXX tons (XXX long tons; XXX short tons). Please consider the same here.
 * Should all be fixed now.


 * Section 1; para 2; "they carried a pair of landing guns, one of which was an 8-pounder and the second was a 4-pounder", nothing about this guns was put in the infobox.
 * Added
 * Section 2; A comma after "to protect Austria's coastline"
 * Added
 * Section 2.2; para 1; Remove thedup-link of Venice. First linked in para 1 of Section 2.1
 * Fixed
 * Consider adding the information about guns refitted around 1867 to the infobox.
 * Done
 * Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, should all be done now. Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: