Talk:SMS Prinz Adalbert (1865)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Need locations for publishers.

   Added. Parsecboy (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Link muzzle-loading, turret, etc. The turrets totally lacked roofs, or just armored roofs? There's more details to be found on her sister in various issues of WI, IIRC, which are relevant here. Link to CSS Stonewall. Convert sizes of sail area. How were her engines reused?

   Links added. The turrets were unenclosed. I'll see what I can dig up in WI on Stonewall. Groner doesn't say how the engines were reused, and I tried looking through the entries for later vessels in the hopes of finding a mention, but to no avail. Parsecboy (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

   I know what Groener said about the turrets, but I'm very dubious that he's correct about that. They may well have not been armored, but I'm damn well certain that they had a roof of some kind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   I don't have anything else to go on. Many ships had open barbettes, so it doesn't strike me as all that unlikely. The one picture is too small to tell if the turrets have roofs or not. Parsecboy (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   Nothing I've read about Stonewall mentions open roofs. See what WI has to say about her or her sister.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   He's probably wrong then. The Sullivan article has the same photo of the ship that's on Commons (but much larger) and it seems pretty clear to me that the turrets had roofs, as there are pieces of equipment mounted on top of them. I'll just remove that line here. Do you happen to know the WI issue that has the Stonewall in it? I looked through the index here and there's no mention of it. Parsecboy (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   Oh, and I reworded the sentence with the awkward tag - is that better now? Parsecboy (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

   Pics?

   Same as the other two. Parsecboy (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

   There's a photo on Commons.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   There's no source, so we can't use it, not even as fair use. Parsecboy (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

   I'd disagree that it can't be used as fair-use, even without a source. In copyright is appreciably the same as unknown copyright status, IMO. I'd suggest adding a photo of her sister if you're not comfortable using the one on Commons with a FUR. Or scan the diagram in from Groener.

   I just realized the WI article has this photo as well, and it too is credited to WZ-Bilddienst. Parsecboy (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: