Talk:Yugoslav submarine Osvetnik/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 20:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67, 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! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Peacemaker67, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I find that it meets all the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I have shared below some comments and questions that should first be addressed. Thanks again for all your hard work on this article! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:30, 22 April 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 submarine, establishes the submarine's necessary context, and explains why the submarine is otherwise notable.
The info box for the submarine is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the referenced cited therein.
It's a pity there is no free image of the Osvetnik in the info box, but this is not a deal breaker for GA.
The lede could stand to include more information from the Description subsection, such as mentioning her partial double hull design.
The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

History
Description

It should be mentioned in this section that Osvetnik means Nemesis in the Serbian language. (Or is Osvetnik a word from another one of the Yugoslav kingdom's languages?)
This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.

Construction

Should Maschinenfabrik be spelled out either in parentheses after "MAN" or with "MAN" in parentheses after Maschinenfabrik?
Osvetnik should be mentioned at least once in this subsection, rather than exclusively referring to her as "she."
This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.

Career and fate

I suggest adding the accent for "attaché" in the first paragraph.
It should be mentioned briefly with either the first or second mention of the Bay of Kotor that it is a bay of the Adriatic Sea to provide greater geographical context.
In the last sentence, I suggest adding a comma after "On 14 September 1943."
There should be a wiki-link to Scuttling in the prose for those readers not familiar with this act of deliberately sinking a ship.
This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.

Thanks very much for the detailed review, West Virginian! I have been unable to locate a free image, but will keep looking. Otherwise, all your points have been addressed. My edit are here. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67, thank you tremendously for your timely response to my above comments and concerns regarding this article. Upon my re-review of the article, I find that you've adequately addressed my concerns and it is hereby a privilege for me to pass this article to Good Article status! Congratulations on another job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]