Talk:Battle of Heligoland (1864)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 08:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is in good shape. A few queries/comments:

• consistency in how the war is described, in the lead and infobox it is the Second War of Schleswig, elsewhere it is the Second Schleswig War. I think the latter is where the article is, so probably that one?
  • Good catch - those are from the article before I rewrote it
• comma after Schleswig in the lead
  • Done
• by my count, only one historian states it was a strategic victory for the Austro-Prussians. I think the result should be stated differently in the lead, based on what is in the body, it appears that two historians consider it a Danish victory, one saying it was inconclusive, with only one claiming a strategic victory for the Austro-Prussians? Perhaps making the lifting of the blockade the main outcome, with the tactical result a lesser issue? I'm not sure about this, but it needs some tightening up in the lead.
  • See if what I rewrote (and added to the body) works.
• "it was also the last time Danish warships"?
  • Good catch
• Baltic Sea, Mediterranean Sea and gunboat are overlinked
  • Fixed
• "rendezvoused in Texel, the Netherlands in the North Sea" doesn't currently make sense. Is there a word or two missing?
  • Dropped the "in the North Sea" bit
• which three Prussian vessels?
  • That was originally closer to the bit about the Prussian vessels being recalled, and I forgot to reword it when I moved things around.
• "the Austrian and Danish commanders" I assume the Prussian commanders also cleared for action?
  • Yup
• maybe point out that Cuxhaven is at the mouth of the Elbe when it is first mentioned
  • Good idea
• perhaps drop the bullets in front of the commanders names, they seem incongruous
  • Ok
• the Preussischer Adler is described as an aviso and as a paddle steamer?
  • It was both, though "aviso" is probably more relevant since that's more descriptive of what type of warship it was
• all the images have appropriate licenses.

Placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks as always, Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

No prob. This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)