Talk:Greek ironclad Psara/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Starstriker7 (talk · contribs) 22:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll do this review. --Starstriker7(Talk) 22:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Criterion 1
edit- "Psara and her sisters saw heavy service with the Greek Navy." - In the lead. I've never heard "heavy service" as a term before. Perhaps this is better phrased as "substantial action"?
- How about "extensive service"?
- "She was powered by a pair of steam engines of unknown type" - What does of unknown type mean? Was the type of engine not listed in your sources, or was it listed in your sources as not known?
- I haven't seen the specific type recorded anywhere.
- When you say the Great Powers prevented the Greeks from utilizing their superior navy, you left it rather vague. Can you clarify it any further?
- Should be more clear now.
- In the service history section, the Turgut Reis and Barbados Hayreddin are listed. You also mention two "outdated ironclad battleships". Are those two Ottoman battleships the same as the two outdated ones? If so, make that more clear.
- Linked to the two ships in question.
- "and she remained at large until the end of the war in May 1913." - in the Service history section. Does "she" refer to the Psara or the Hamidiye?
- Clarified.
- Can you wikilink "Poros" in the last paragraph of the Service history section?
- Done.
I completed a few minor copyedits. If I changed anything significant and for the worse, let me know.
- Looks good to me.
Criterion 2
edit- Should the information in the infobox be cited?
- The general practice is, if it's cited in the text, material in the infobox (like the lead section) doesn't need its own citation.
Overall comments
editAs far as I can tell, the article meets Criteria 3 (comprehensiveness), 4 (neutrality), 5 (stability) and 6 (images). Criterion 2 should also be satisfied save the one tidbit above. All references are cited to offline sources, so I cannot directly verify them. I have read that tertiary sources (encyclopedias) are considered unreliable, but the single citation linked to it is also linked to another source.
Once the grammatical clarifications and infobox issue are resolved, the article should be set to pass. Good work as usual. --Starstriker7(Talk) 22:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wait! One last thing. I noticed that the "Psara" part of the title is not in italics. Unless I'm missing something, I think this should also be fixed. --Starstriker7(Talk) 22:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done. As for the encyclopedia reference, as far as I'm aware, the general policy on tertiary sources is more or less the same as secondary sources, which is that some are better than others, and its up to good editorial judgement when to use them. Since this one is a contemporary record of ships and shipping technology, etc., it should be fine for the very limited purpose I'm using it for (which is simply to support the location of the 1897-1900 reconstruction: La Seyne). Thanks for reviewing the article! Parsecboy (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome! It looks like everything is in order. I will pass the article momentarily. --Starstriker7(Talk) 05:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done. As for the encyclopedia reference, as far as I'm aware, the general policy on tertiary sources is more or less the same as secondary sources, which is that some are better than others, and its up to good editorial judgement when to use them. Since this one is a contemporary record of ships and shipping technology, etc., it should be fine for the very limited purpose I'm using it for (which is simply to support the location of the 1897-1900 reconstruction: La Seyne). Thanks for reviewing the article! Parsecboy (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wait! One last thing. I noticed that the "Psara" part of the title is not in italics. Unless I'm missing something, I think this should also be fixed. --Starstriker7(Talk) 22:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)