Talk:HMS New Zealand (1911)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I don't think "incommunicado is the best choice though.

   Cut off is the best equivalent phrase that I can think of and I'm not sure that it works any better. Suggestions?

   How's this? Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

   That will work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

   In reference to the hit by Lion on Von der Tann, I think that the fire "obscured" would be clearer than "enveloped," which implies to me that the entire ship caught fire.

   That's a better word.

   The last sentence of the Jutland section - you might want to change it to "confirming for the crew the preventative value..." or something to that effect. We'd hope that the average reader can figure out that you're not saying the piupiu and tiki had actual magical characteristics, but you never know.

   Agreed.

   In the Dominion tour section, does the "1/3 of the population" bit refer to the visit in 1913 or 1919? It's unclear right now.

   Actually I'm drawing a blank on how to rephrase it as it seems pretty clear to me that the terminal clause applies to the 1913 visit. Care to take a stab?

   On second thought, is that detail worth repeating there? It's mentioned in the bit about the 1913 tour. Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

   Agreed and I've deleted it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There's a citation needed tag in the first para

   What makes this reliable?

   Nothing, but it's a great resource, sigh. Gone.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The article is mostly there, it just needs a bit of refining to pass here. Nice work on this article, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good now, I'll pass it for GA. Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)