Talk:SMS Wiesbaden/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 21:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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):
What makes Ref #19 (No Limits Diving) a reliable source?

The author, Thomas Nielsen, is apparently an expert diver, an experienced wreck diver, and has written books on the Battle of Jutland and wreck diving (see here).
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
In the class article, you say "At 25 kn (46 km/h; 29 mph), the cruising radius dropped significantly, to 1,200 nmi (2,200 km; 1,400 mi)." and "Wiesbaden was equipped with a pair of turbo generators and one diesel generator rated at a combined 300 kilowatts (400 hp) at 220 Volts." and give more information about armor coverage. Would these be interesting tidbits to add here?

Generally, the class article should have more specificity on technical details than the ship articles and vice versa for service history. Otherwise, they would be more or less copies of each other.
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:

I just have one question about the reliability of a source and a niggle about coverage - other than that, the article looks great, so I'm placing the article on hold to allow that to be addressed. I made one small copyedit tweak - please revert me if it was not, in fact, a typo. Dana boomer (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article - the copyedit was indeed a typo. Parsecboy (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good here as well, so I'm also passing this one. Thanks for the prompt replies. Dana boomer (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]