Talk:SMS Nautilus (1906)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 21:11, 27 July 2016 (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: no dabs - [3] (no action req'd)
• Linkrot: No dead links - [4] (no action req'd).
• Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it - [5] (no action req'd, not part of the GA criteria / suggestion only)
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed (no action req'd).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • Is there a typo here: "hull was launched as Nautilus on 20 August 1906." In the infobox it says launched on 28 August.
    • The 28th is correct, good catch.
  • "... both five miles long..." perhaps use the {{convert}} template here?
    • Good idea.
  • Slightly repetitive prose here: "...Following the disbanding of the unit the following..." (following x 2 in close proximity - perhaps reword one?)
    • Changed the second one to "next".
  • I made a few edits [7].
    • All look fine to me.
• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • No issues. Article is well referenced and looks to reflect the sources available on this vessel.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • All major aspects seem to be covered.
  • Article is focused and doesn't go into unnecessary detail.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

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

  • No issues.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues.

• 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:

  • Images are appropriate for article and appear to be PD / free and have the req'd documentation.
  • Captions look ok.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • This looks good to me, only a couple of fairly minor prose points above to address /discuss. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
      • No worries, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)