Talk:SMS Falke

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Parsecboy in topic Photo
Good articleSMS Falke has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starSMS Falke is part of the Unprotected cruisers of Germany series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 22, 2013Good article nomineeListed
October 8, 2014Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Falke/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 22:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Seems to go hand in hand with SMS Bussard, so I'm picking up the review.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

  • No duplicate links found in the article (no action required)
  • No disambiguation links found in the article (no action required)
  • Checklinks reports no problems with external links (no action required)
  • Copyvio detector reports no problems with the article (no action required)
  • Images have appropriate licences/sourcing/captions (no action required)
  • Referencing is generally fine, except some missing ISBNs/ISSNs or OCLCs:
    • Australian Journal of Politics & History - is the publication this one? If so, there are ISSN and OCLC available
      • Added.
    • Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1860–1905 - I trust the info is here - please check.
      • Is there something I'm missing? The ref is complete as far as I can tell.
        • Oops. My bad.
    • General Information Series: Information From Abroad - There's an OCLC available here
      • Added.
    • Revelations of a German Attaché: Ten Years of German-American Diplomacy - OCLC is here
      • Added.
  • According to MOS:Ety, padrão should be italicized.
    • Fixed, good catch.

No other qualms, nice work. Sorry about the delay, the RL stepped in over here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

No worries about the delay, I know all about RL stepping in ;) Parsecboy (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Right then. Good to go!--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Photo edit

here. Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply