Talk:Schwalbe-class cruiser

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSchwalbe-class cruiser 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 starSchwalbe-class cruiser 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 23, 2014Good article nomineeListed
October 8, 2014Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 23:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll take this article for review, and should have my full comments up by later tonight. Dana boomer (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2014 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • Design, "The Schwalbe class was the first unprotected cruisers" - "Schwalbe class was" is singular, but "unprotected cruisers" is plural.
    • Fixed.
    • General characteristics, "transverse framing composed on steel, wood, and copper" - Should this be "composed of"?
    • Not quite sure how I managed that typo, since the "n" and "f" keys aren't all that close :)
    • Service history, "Both ships were sold for scrapping in August 1920 and were broken up for scrap in 1922 in Hamburg." - Scrapping...scrap, repetitive.
    • Fixed.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  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:
    • Just a few minor prose issues, so I'm placing the article on hold to allow them to be resolved. Dana boomer (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks again Dana, all should be fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]