Talk:SMS Mecklenburg/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
The Scheer book needs place of publication
Added. Parsecboy (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Was the ship disarmed at all?
It wasn't mentioned specifically in Conways 1906-1921 or Groner, but it was in Conway's 1860-1905. That's what I get for assuming the 1860 volume wouldn't have any further service-related info than the 1906 volume. Parsecboy (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
No picture of Mecklenburg herself, I presume?
Not that I've been able to track down. There's File:Mecklenburg.jpg on Commons, but it has no source. I could do fair use, but there'd probably be some nitpicker who'd argue it wouldn't satisfy FU-requirements because the purpose of illustrating the ship can be fulfilled by the photo of her sister. And I just don't want to add any potential hassle, you know? Parsecboy (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail: