Talk:Action of 28 January 1945/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: - the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required)
• Disambiguations: none found - [3] (no action required)
• Linkrot: Ext links all work - [4] (no action required)
• Alt text: Images lack alt text (although this is not a requirement for GA anyway so its up to you if you want to add it or not) - [5] (no action required)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • You might considered putting something in the Lead to indicate that the action occurred during the Second World War;
    • Done
  • The first paragraph of the Background section is a little repetitive (use of January three times, and again in the first sentence of the second paragraph) - maybe reword a little?;
    • Done
  • I think the grammer in this sentence is a little off: "Upon sighting the German destroyers the British cruisers fired star shell and turned to the south on a course parallel to the German ships." Specifically was only one star shell fired or were there multiple? IMO it should be reworded to either "fired a star shell" or "fired star shells"; and
    • Fixed. 'Star shell' is normally used in cases where multiple shells were fired (from memory), but this is probably needlessly technical/jargon as 'shells' works well
  • The battle section has quite a number of stubby paragraphs. IMO these could be merged into 3 paragraphs which might make the prose flow a bit better. Specifically I would link the first and second paras and the third and fourth.
    • Done
• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): 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.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Just a couple of minor issues with prose as above. Anotherclown (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    • All comments addressed now, I think. Thanks for the review. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Cheers Nick. Looks good IMO. Happy to pass for GA. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)