Talk:SMS Hay (1860)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Hay (1860)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 15:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 14:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article that seems at first glance to be well-written and researched and close to meeting the Good article criteria already. I look forward to starting a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Overall, the standard of the article is good.
• It is of reasonable length, with 1,001 words of readable prose.
• The lead is significant with a length of 135 words.
• Authorship is 100% from the nominator.
• It is currently assessed as a Start class article, although Rater predicts a B or higher.
• Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT to the image for accessibility.

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • I only saw a small grammar correction needed, which I have fixed, as well as one of the wikilinks.
   • Otherwise, I can see no grammar or spelling errors.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • It seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included; the sources listed have all the information needed.
   • Is there a reason that the citations are author and page rather than author, date and page?

   • That's the format I've always used

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • Spot checks confirm Hildebrand, Röhr, & Steinmetz 1993 and Lyon 1979. AGF for offline resources that I do not have access to.

   it contains no original research;

   • All relevant statements have inline citations.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 2% chance of copyright violation, which is reported as "violation unlikely". The highest correlation is Conway's and is not significant,

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • The article covers the main aspects of the vessel's specification and service.
   • There may be more information on page 33 of Hildebrand, Röhr, & Steinmetz 1993. Is there anything worth including?

   • I'm not sure what you're seeing online, but page 33 of Vol. 4 is about Grille, a ship from the 1930s.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The article looks compliant.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The article seems generally balanced, using both German and English sources.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • The image has appropriate PD tags.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • The image is appropriate.

@Parsecboy: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article, @Simongraham: Parsecboy (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)