Talk:German destroyer Z11 Bernd von Arnim

Typo

In Career, paragraph 1, it says Gneisenau and Gneisenau. Other than that it passes B-class inspection. Djmaschek (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, fixed. Thanks for pointing that out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:German destroyer Z11 Bernd von Arnim/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mykleavens (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I will review this article for GA. I haven't read it yet but will record first impressions soon. --Mykleavens (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Initial review

Having read this very interesting article, I have the following points and questions:

1. Please provide a citation in "Design and description" for the length and weight statistics

Cite #1 covers everything in the paragraph before it.

2. I'd prefer the career section to be subdivided into sub-sections for better structure

Done.

3. Need to clarify years: i.e., minefield in the Thames estuary in November 1939; Operation Weserübung in April 1940

Done.

4. "The ships exchanged fire without effect until Hipper was spotted an hour later and sank Glowworm shortly afterward" is ambiguous and needs to be reworded. Did Hipper or von Arnim sink Glowworm?

Done.

5. Tell us a bit about Commander Bey. Was he on von Armin or another ship?

Another ship. If von Arnim had been his flagship, it would have been mentioned.

6. The article ends rather abruptly and needs a brief epilogue to round things off. What happened to the wreck and was any salvage attempted? What became of the captain and crew?

Done. Nothing known about any salvage.

I've checked the article against standard B-class criteria to understand its current status and it would be C-class given the points raised above:

1. It is suitably referenced and all major points have appropriate inline citations.

2. It reasonably covers the topic and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.

3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.

4. It is free from major grammatical errors.

5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images or diagrams.

6. It is fully and correctly categorised and carries all appropriate templates.

Re criterion 6, I haven't studied the categories and templates yet as I need to compare with other similar articles.

If you can address the points made, I will do a final review against the GA criteria. It is close to the standard already and should not need much extra effort to get there. It is a very interesting and certainly well-written account. I won't put it on hold just yet. --Mykleavens (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Good article criteria

well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise –

(b) the spelling and grammar are correct –

(c) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for:

• lead sections –
• layout –
• words to watch –
• fiction –
• list incorporation –

factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout –

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, contentious material relating to living persons and counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged –

(c) it contains no original research –

(d) science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines – not applicable

broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic –

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail –

(c) it uses a summary style –

neutral –

stable –

illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content –

(b) images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions –

Summary

A very concise and informative account. I can't see that the article will expand much or that there is scope for further improvement. It has reached GA very easily and I was struggling to find ways by which I could help you to improve it. I see you've written a number of these pieces and, as I'm always looking for material about WWII, I'll be reading those too. Well done. --Mykleavens (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)