Talk:SMS Salamander (1861)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 02:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Will come back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Section 1; para 1; There are many consistency errors in the the para and the infobox. Here goes the list:

Parameter	Prose	Infobox
Length	70.1 meters (230 ft 0 in)	62.78 m (206 ft 0 in)
Beam	14 meters (45 ft 11 in)	13.94 m (45 ft 9 in)
Draft	6.8 meters (22 ft 4 in)	6.3 m (20 ft 8 in)
Displacement	2,824 long tons	2,707 long tons
Indicated HP	1,540 kW	1,374 kW
Speed	10.5 knots (19.4 km/h; 12.1 mph)	11 knots (20 km/h; 13 mph)

Please correct these. And also mostly in many of other ship articles of Austia-Hungary (mostly done by you), used the displcament format as XXX tons (XXX long tons; XXX short tons). Please consider the same here.

Should all be fixed - another editor wrote up the design section and infobox, and their stuff is usually pretty squared away, so I didn't really look at it closely.

• Section 2; sentence 1; Explain about Drache on its first mention i.e it is the sister ship, than in the later sentence.
  • Fixed
• Section 2; sentence 2; Remove the dup-link of Drache
  • Done
• Section 2; A comma (,) after "to protect Austria's coastline"
  • Added
• Section 2; Link "Denmark"
  • Done
• Section 2.1; para 3; sentence 1; "By this time, Re d'Italia had been rammed and sunk and the coastal defense ship Palestro was burning", the use of "and" is a bit confusing, revise.
  • Removed the "rammed and", which should hopefully clear it up a bit
• Section 2.2; para 1; Remove thedup-link of Venice. First linked in para 1 of Section 2.1
  • Done
• Consider adding the information about guns refitted around 1867 to the infobox.
  • Added
• Consistency error between lead, prose, and infobox. The year for "broken-up", in the lead it is 1896, in prose (section 2.2) it is 1895–1896, and in infobox it is 1895. Please correct them.
  • Good catch, fixed.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again! Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)