Talk:SMS Elbing/GA1

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

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 23:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Status
This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s).

Discussion
Please reply to the comments in the Status section here.

All three items should be addressed. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your third point in the first box - "though" is a neutral word (unlike "luckily/unfortunately" or something like those). It's a simple statement of fact. Parsecboy (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was meaning that though implies unlikeliness, which seems to contradict the situation. This issue is pretty minor. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not how I read it - as far as I'm aware, "though" is similar "but", and has no connotation like you suggested. That said, it was extremely unlikely for the ship to have been hit, the British battlecruisers had the worst accuracy of any unit in the engagement, somewhere in the 2% range, and most of those came at much closer range than this, later in the battle. Heck, HMS New Zealand (1911), the worst-shooting ship of the battle, scored a whopping 2 or 3 hits out of over 400 large-caliber rounds fired, less than 1% accuracy. Parsecboy (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Though my knowledge of the battle is by far less deep then your's, I also came to conclusion that the damage in that situation was unlikely. The process of review is now complete. Good work! &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the issues 1a3 – 1a5 are recommendations. I won't fail GA on this basis. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: crew size - ships typically had a larger wartime crew, which is what this discrepancy represents. I clarified that in the design section.
 * Fixed the "them"s. Parsecboy (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)