Talk:SMS Magdeburg/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 14:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Just two niggles with the prose where things aren't clear
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Service history:
 * "The minefield laid by Augsburg was poorly marked and was more of a hindrance to German operations." More of a hindrance than what? Suggest "The minefield laid by Augsburg was poorly marked and hindered German operations more than Russian efforts."
 * Fixed as you suggested.
 * Linkie for "Rear Admiral Behring"? "Prince Heinrich"?
 * Yes for Prince Heinrich, no for Behring, can't even find his first name.
 * "Prince Heinrich, the overall commander of the Baltic naval forces, replaced Mischke with Rear Admiral Behring. He ordered another operation for 26 August..." who is the "he" that ordered the operation? It's unclear from the context (it could be either Heinrich or the Behring)
 * Clarified.
 * I've done a light copyedit, which hopefully didn't destroy any meaning.
 * Looks good to me.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing the article, Ealdgyth, everything should be addressed now. Parsecboy (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Changes look good. Passing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarified.
 * I've done a light copyedit, which hopefully didn't destroy any meaning.
 * Looks good to me.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing the article, Ealdgyth, everything should be addressed now. Parsecboy (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Changes look good. Passing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)