Talk:German cruiser Karlsruhe/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

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. OK. 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. * Suggest changing the first section header to "Characteristics" (to conform with the approach on her sister ships) rather than "Design", unless this is something specific to a lead ship.
* Also, 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 "Karlsruhe was a German light cruiser that was operated between 1929 and April 1940, including service in World War II. (was she the lead vessel in her class? I thought that was Königsberg?) She was operated by two German navies, ..."
* I have a query about the format of the article title. According to WP:NCSHIP Karlsruhe should be italicised in the title.
* Also, the KMS in the infobox is not consistent with her sister ships (one doesn't have a prefix there, one has DKM. It was my understanding that Kriegsmarine ships didn't have a formal prefix, but that some authors use them. Perhaps it would be better to be consistent with the article title and drop the prefix?
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. File:Karlsruhe h99643.jpg appears to need a US licence.
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 Passed.
Everything should all be taken care of, thanks for reviewing these articles. Parsecboy (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
No dramas at all. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)