Talk:SMS Nautilus (1906)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 21:11, 27 July 2016 (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: no dabs - (no action req'd)
 * Linkrot: No dead links - (no action req'd).
 * Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it - (no action req'd, not part of the GA criteria / suggestion only)
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing  (no action req'd).
 * Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed (no action req'd).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Is there a typo here: "hull was launched as Nautilus on 20 August 1906." In the infobox it says launched on 28 August.
 * The 28th is correct, good catch.
 * "... both five miles long..." perhaps use the undefined undefined template here?
 * Good idea.
 * Slightly repetitive prose here: "...Following the disbanding of the unit the following..." (following x 2 in close proximity - perhaps reword one?)
 * Changed the second one to "next".
 * I made a few edits.
 * All look fine to me.
 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No issues. Article is well referenced and looks to reflect the sources available on this vessel.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * All major aspects seem to be covered.
 * Article is focused and doesn't go into unnecessary detail.


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


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


 * 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 appropriate for article and appear to be PD / free and have the req'd documentation.
 * Captions look ok.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * This looks good to me, only a couple of fairly minor prose points above to address /discuss. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)