Talk:SMS Mecklenburg/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Parsecboy in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteriaReply

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
    The Scheer book needs place of publication
    Added. Parsecboy (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    Was the ship disarmed at all?
    It wasn't mentioned specifically in Conways 1906-1921 or Groner, but it was in Conway's 1860-1905. That's what I get for assuming the 1860 volume wouldn't have any further service-related info than the 1906 volume. Parsecboy (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
    No picture of Mecklenburg herself, I presume?
    Not that I've been able to track down. There's File:Mecklenburg.jpg on Commons, but it has no source. I could do fair use, but there'd probably be some nitpicker who'd argue it wouldn't satisfy FU-requirements because the purpose of illustrating the ship can be fulfilled by the photo of her sister. And I just don't want to add any potential hassle, you know? Parsecboy (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: