Talk:Magdeburg-class cruiser

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Magdeburg-class cruiser article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Magdeburg-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.

Magdeburg-class cruiser 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 5, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
February 25, 2012	Good topic candidate	Promoted
March 16, 2014	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / European / German / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War I task force

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 19:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Status

This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s).

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Discussion

Regarding the failing point:

2(a): the lead section is completely unreferenced. The already present references can be reused in order to address this shortcoming.

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sections do not require citations if the material is cited later in the body, see WP:LEADCITE. Parsecboy (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, it is not required, though I think it might be better to have at least something referenced.

Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.
— WP:LEADCITE

If you are still convinced that nothing could be challenged in the lead, I would dismiss this notice and pass the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is fine as is - standard practice is to omit citations in the lead for everything except possibly for DYK hooks. This is the way I've written scores of articles, including a couple dozen FAs, and it's never been an issue. Parsecboy (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Though it isn't required, I would suggest to port footnotes to {{sfn}} format in order to make the references easier accessed.

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like adding unnecessary templates to pages that already use a fair few; too many templates tend to slow down pages much worse than the additional characters do, especially on slower connections. Parsecboy (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, as interclusions on Wikipedia are included in the document while it is generated from wiki code, so the templates result in the addition characters. Anyway, it was a suggestion, WP:MOS doesn't require {{sfn}} for WP:SFN. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the act of transcluding something onto a page usually slows down the page more than the simple coding. There have been numerous discussions on this in the past. The other issue is, I've been using this same citation format for 3 or 4 years now - I don't particularly feel like relearning the muscle memory for something of relatively minor benefit. Parsecboy (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]