Talk:German cruiser Königsberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article German cruiser Königsberg 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 star German cruiser Königsberg is part of the Light 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
Date Process Result
January 7, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
March 16, 2014 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 23:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC) I'll review this and the other two Königsberg class cruisers in the next couple of days. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. * I have done a bit of a c/e of the lead to add wikilinks. Feel free to revert any you don't think are necessary.
* Spotchecks for copyright problems all clear.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. * I really think the first sentence needs to be more comprehensive in terms of defining the subject. It is a very short sentence and doesn't really provide much information. What about something like "Königsberg was a German light cruiser that was operated between 1929 and April 1940, including service in World War II. She was the lead vessel of her class, and was operated by two German navies, ..."
* I have a query about the format of the article title. According to WP:NCSHIP Königsberg should be italicised in the title.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. OK
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. OK
2c. it contains no original research. OK
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. OK
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). OK
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. OK
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. OK
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. OK
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. OK
7. Overall assessment. Review complete, on hold for seven days to address criteria 1b Passed.
Thanks for reviewing the article, Peacemaker - your changes all look fine to me, and I made the two corrections you suggested. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
No prob, a pleasure. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)