Talk:28 cm SK L/40 gun/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

As an experienced contributor, Sturmvogel, you'll excuse me being quite concise on the review - if you want further clarification, I'm more than happy. Opening words - just a few small things, no reason why it can't pass shortly. Ideally, although it doesn't fall under anything below, I think words on a "jargon level" of 'trunnion' should be linked. Also, if you could put into the article, suitably referenced, the " 1890—91" design time, and the "1891—1904?" production time from the infobox, as new material ought'nt be in the infobox (can't find the relevant guideline, but I believe this to be the case). I'm honestly not sure whether that needs to be complied with for GA status, but solving it would answer that anyway.

Cited, but not added added to the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Fine.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Lead needs to be slightly bigger - doesn't seem to reflect the Description section much.
Hard to summarize a description without simply duplicating material in both sections.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Could we have slight elaborate on the web references - such as the website name they came from? Helps with verifiability if they're broken and everything. Text sources are more the sufficient, by comparison. [I don't believe there's any need to keep the jarring block caps of the name.]
Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Just the two points I'd like to see one; possibly outside requirements, but probably to your personal satisfaction.
Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Passes, although I think rather reliant on the "[does not need to] cover every major fact or detail" clause because of the brevity of the history section - the reader has some idea, but it's not great. I'd consider perhaps thinking about what history ends up in the "Description" section, and what ends up below. "The Treaty of Versailles allowed the Germans to retain four pre-dreadnoughts, although only two, Schleswig-Holstein and Schlesien, were rearmed" [ my emphasis] means the History section sounds like we come in part way through, but this isn't the case you've read the Description section (hence why this isn't a blocking problem), but it would be preferable, I think, if the reader didn't have to do that, given the somewhat technical nature of the Description section.
I agree and have reworked it in line with your suggestions. See how it reads.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2011 (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:
Fine. Can't really imagine what additional images could add.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Just a few things to sort out, so I'm placing the article on hold for now.
Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's everything covered. I added a sentence to the lead, although I appreciate the problem. All fine now. (Will pass shortly.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]