Talk:SMS Sperber/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 23:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take this article for review, and should have my full comments up by later tonight. Dana boomer (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2014 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * I'm sure you've checked the IP addition from April 5 to make sure everything is solid there?
 * Yeah, it's the standard note explaining SMS and the translation of the ship's name.
 * Lead, "but was thereafter used as a target ship until 1918. She was thereafter sold" - close repetition of "thereafter".
 * Changed the second one to "later"
 * Second deployment abroad, "presence was unnecessary there." I think the "there" is unnecessary.
 * Sounds fine to me.
 * Second deployment abroad, "German East Africa to replace Bussard there." Again, the "there" doesn't seem to be adding anything.
 * Removed.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): 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 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:
 * Overall very solid, just a few minor comments on prose. Placing the article on hold until these can be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks yet again, I think everything should be corrected. Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And again everything looks good, so passing to GA. Dana boomer (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall very solid, just a few minor comments on prose. Placing the article on hold until these can be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks yet again, I think everything should be corrected. Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And again everything looks good, so passing to GA. Dana boomer (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)