Talk:30.5 cm SK L/50 gun/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Lead. "Three of its guns were transferred to Helogoland". Is this a mis-spelling of Helgoland? I didn't want to change it in case I was mistaken...

• Oh, it was a typo.

1. • Ammunition. "These guns mounted fired two types of shells" Huh?

• Fixed

1. • Ammunition. The second sentence of the first paragraph is long and carries a lot of information. Could this be split into two sentences?
   • In the Ammunition section, most of the conversions are done manually, but then there is one conversion template at the end of the section. Could you please standardize this?

• Does this really matter? It's transparent to the reader, so why bother since non-breaking spaces already separate the numbers from the units?

• Fixed it myself. Dana boomer (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

1. • In the table in the Ammunition section, why are some of the first words of shell names capitalized, but others aren't?

• German terminology is followed where only nouns are capitalized.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • From the title, ref #13 (François, Guy), appears to be in French. Please note this in the reference, and also do so for any other non-English references. (Possibly also the 1998 Rolf book?)
   • What makes ref #15 ("Bat. Ottenhöfen) a reliable source? It appears to be a public forum.

• Considering it's mostly scans from photos and from original sources I thought it close enough.

• Um, "close enough" doesn't really cut it. Public forums aren't reliable sources, especially since full citations for the books aren't presented on the website. This needs to be replaced. Dana boomer (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Deleted although I disagree with you since there was a scanned original document there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

1. • Ref #17 (Atlantic Wall Linear Museum) needs a publisher.

• Why? It's a website.

• Because websites need publishers - the publisher being the organization/person who put the information on the web. I've corrected this. Dana boomer (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. 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):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall a nice article. There are a few issues that need to be taken care of with prose, MOS and refs, but these shouldn't take too long to address. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I had accidently neglected to add this to my watchlist, and hadn't seen your responses above. The only outstanding issue is the use of a forum, which is not a reliable source (see further comment above). Once this is taken care of, the article should be good to go for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I am now passing this article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)