Talk:SMS Schwalbe

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Tomobe03 in topic GA Review
Good articleSMS Schwalbe 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 Schwalbe 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
April 21, 2014Good article nomineeListed
October 8, 2014Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 09:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'll get to this review shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • No disambiguation links (no action requried)
  • No broken links per checklinks report (no action required)
  • No duplicate links (no action required)
  • Images are suitably sourced and licensed, and have suitable captions - however "Deutsch Ost-Afrika,1892.jpg" (map) licence at the Commons indicates US-PD tag need be added.
    • Added the US-1923 tag.
  • Referencing appears to be in order (no action required)
  • In the section of "Second deployment overseas", there is the following sentence: "There, she was commissioned a second time three days later." Given the context, I get the impression this is an error, and it should read "There, she was decommissioned a second time three days later." Is that so, or is there some other clarification missing?
    • Yeah, it should be decommissioned, good catch.

Besides an image licensing nag (a minor one at that) there's only one prose issue I spotted in the way of successful promotion of this GAN. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review as always, Tomobe. Parsecboy (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
You're welcome. All clear now, so passing.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply