Talk:SMS Stettin/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 05:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Generic comments/suggestions:
 * duplicate links: High Seas Fleet, SMS Danzig, SMS Frauenlob, SMS V1
 * All cleaned up.
 * "SMS Stettin was a Königsberg class light cruiser" - should this have a hyphen in front of "class"?
 * Yup.
 * inconsistent: "laid down at the AG Vulcan shipyard in her namesake city in 1906" but in the infobox it says "Laid down: March 1905";
 * Yeah, that's a legacy from the old version of the article - I apparently never cleaned up the top section of the infobox.
 * "side by side" --> should this be "side-by-side"
 * Probably.
 * seems inconsistent: "115.3 meters (378 ft)" v "13.2 m (43 ft)";
 * I prefer to spell out a unit the first time I use it, and then abbreviate all instances thereafter.
 * capitalisation: in body "14 officers" but in the infobox "14 Officers"
 * Probably another old infobox legacy
 * same as above with "308 enlisted men" in body and "308 Enlisted men" in infobox;
 * "They were supplied with 1,500 rounds of ammunition, for 150 shells per gun" --> Perhaps try, "They were supplied with 1,500 rounds of ammunition, amounting to 150 shells per gun";
 * Sounds good to me.
 * "Stettin was at anchor to the northeast of the island of Heligoland" --> Perhaps try, "Stettin was at anchor to the northeast of Heligoland island";
 * Sounds good.
 * "At 08:32, Stettin received the report of German torpedo boats in contact with the British, and so immediately weighed anchor and steamed off to support them" (you could probably knock out the word "so" here);
 * Alright.
 * "The Russians did attempt to intervene with a force of four cruisers—Admiral Makarov, Bayan, Oleg, and Bogatyr. The Russian ships briefly engaged München" --> Perhaps try, "The Russians attempted to intervene with a force of four cruisers: Admiral Makarov, Bayan, Oleg, and Bogatyr. The Russian ships briefly engaged München..."
 * Works for me.
 * in the first paragraph of the Battle of Jutland section, there is no indication of what date it took place;
 * Yeah, that seems a rather abrupt way to start the section. I've added a couple of lines to introduce it better.
 * "In the melee, HMS Southampton was hit by approximately eighteen 10.5 cm shells, including hits from Stettin" --> Perhaps try, "In the melee, HMS Southampton was hit by approximately eighteen 10.5 cm shells, including some from Stettin".
 * Sounds better to me.
 * "The two ships accidentally attacked the German destroyers G11, V1, and V3 at 23:55" --> what was the consequence of this? Any damage or casualties? Was anyone later charged/court martialed? etc.
 * Neither Campbell or Tarrant mention anything else about the incident. Given the generally very low hit-rate of naval gunnery at the time (and especially in the dark), it's probable that no hits were made.
 * "warships still in German service that must be surrendered to the Allied powers" --> "warships in German service that were required to be surrendered to the Allied powers"
 * How about just "...that were to be surrendered..."?
 * Yes, that works. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * this possibly needs some context: "Article 185 of the Treaty of Versailles..." Perhaps try, "Under Article 185 of the Treaty of Versailles that was negotiated following the armistice, Stettin was listed as one of the..."
 * I don't like "negotiated", since it gives the impression that Germany was allowed to participate in the deliberations. Does what I added give more context?
 * Yes, that's fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * is there an OCLC number that could be added for "Germany's High Seas Fleet in the World War" in the References?
 * Added. Thanks for reviewing the article so thoroughly, AR. Parsecboy (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, happy to help. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Technical review
 * a (Disambiguations): b (Linkrot)  c (Alt text)  d (Copyright)
 * Images lack alt text; it is not a requirement, but you might consider adding it in.
 * Images lack alt text; it is not a requirement, but you might consider adding it in.


 * Criteria
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * All issues above resolved.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All information cited to good quality, reliable sources.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Detailed in its coverage, but not too detailed.


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


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Recent edits have all been focused upon bringing the article up to GA status. No edit war 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:
 * No issues.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Good work as usual, Parsec. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)