Talk:SMS Kaiser Max (1875)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSMS Kaiser Max (1875) 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 Kaiser Max (1875) is part of the Ironclads of Austria-Hungary 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
September 26, 2016Good article nomineeListed
December 22, 2018Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Yugoslav service[edit]

@Peacemaker67: - I wonder if you might have any sources that shed a bit of light on this ship's fate? Parsecboy (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Kaiser Max (1875)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 11:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well constructed, will get back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1[edit]

  • Para 1; The sentence She had a crew of 400 officers and men is a bit confusing. A reader may get an idea that it had 400 officers alone, and also men not including in these 400. Please correct this.
    • This is a pretty standard way to write this, and there's no good way to change it to fix what you suggest. See for instance FAs like Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano.

Section 2[edit]

  • Para 3; The sentence The ship's fate after entering Yugoslav service was abruptly cut with a full stop, not giving a information about the fate. Instead of a full stop, a semi colon (;) would help.
    • Good catch, fixed.

Lead[edit]

  • I suggest replacing the word "purportedly" with its synonym, because most of the standard dictionaries don't have a definition /meaning for the word.
    • This is a common word - I don't know where you looked, but it's in Merriam-Webster, the Cambridge Dictionary, and Dictionary.com (the only three I checked, surely its in others).

All good, address these suggestions and will be good to go. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Parsecboy (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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) 10:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SMS_Kaiser_Max_(1875)&oldid=1205340157"