Talk:Ottoman cruiser Peyk-i Şevket/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 18:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime! Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Parsecboy, I've finished a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I assess that it meets or exceeds the complete criteria for passage to Good Article status. Before its passage, however, I have shared below some comments and questions that must first be addressed. Thank you for all your diligent work on this article. -- Caponer (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): 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 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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the cruiser, establishes the cruiser's necessary context, and explains why the cruiser is notable.
The Peyk-i Şevket-class cruiser image is released into the Public Domain in the US, and because it is properly licensed, it is free to use in this article.
The lede is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Design

As is the case with Ottoman cruiser Berk-i Satvet, the namesake of Peyk-i Şevket should be briefly mentioned here.

I'll check on this when I look at Berk later today.

This isn't a deal breaker for passage to GA, but I recommend after its passage that if this information becomes available, to please add it to this section as the reader may be curious of the Ottoman Turkish meaning of its name.

Per Wikipedia:Inline citation, inline citations should be consolidated at the end of the sentences and paragraphs in numerical order. However, this is merely a suggestion as WP:INTEGRITY may allow the usage of inline citations within a sentence.
Sea trials should be wiki-linked in the first paragraph of this section, rather than in the first paragraph of "Service history" since she is mentioned as having "displaced 775 t (763 long tons; 854 short tons) while on trials." Sea trials should be de-linked in the "Service history" section.

Fixed.

Otherwise, this section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Service history

Sea trials should be wiki-linked in the "Design" section, as it was the first mention, and de-linked here.

Fixed per above.

The image of silhouettes of the major warships of the Ottoman Navy in 1914 is released into the public domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
Similar to the question at hand regarding Ottoman cruiser Berk-i Satvet, do we know why was interned for the duration of the Italo-Turkish War in the Suez Canal. It's probably for similar reasons to the Berk, so it should be listed here if any of your sources indicate the rationale behind this move.

At the time, Egypt was under a de facto British protectorate, and belligerents that enter neutral territory are interned for the remainder of the conflict. Granted, Egypt was still technically part of the Ottoman Empire, so the internment was illegal (at least according to the 1907 Hague Convention) but then the British protectorate over Egypt itself had no legal basis. This is all probably too far on a tangent to be included in the article. There's the article on internment, but it's almost entirely concerned with internment with relation to concentration camps - perhaps a link to the wiktionary entry would work better?

This isn't necessary, perhaps mention that they were interned during the conflict as Egypt was under a de facto British protectorate instead.

As mentioned above, per Wikipedia:Inline citation, inline citations should be consolidated at the end of the sentences and paragraphs in numerical order. However, this is merely a suggestion as WP:INTEGRITY may allow the usage of inline citations within a sentence.
Otherwise, this section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.
Parsecboy, thank you for all your hard work on this article and for addressing each of my comments in a timely manner. The only outstanding fall outside the criteria for Good Article status, so I leave those with you as recommendations for the future as more information becomes available. In the meantime, I feel comfortable passing this to Good Article status! -- Caponer (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]