Talk:SMS Wettin/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
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.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Certainly a GA-class article. I have a few quibbles that I'd like to bring up for discussion before signing off:

Links

I propose the following wikilinks:

para 1 - sister ship
para 1 - capital ship
para 2 - training ship
para 2 - depot ship
para 2 - scrapping to ship breaking
para 6 - I wish there were links for the guns. ~~The 24cm guns might be 24 cm SK L/30 "Theodor Otto", but I don't think there's an article for "15 cm SK L/40".~~
para last - Rönnebeck is apparently a part of the city of Bremen.
- All done. Parsecboy (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Head-scratchers

I found myself scratching my head at the specification of forward draft — it's typically the smallest and most variable. Midships or deep draft would seem more useful. Is this a commonly used statistic?
- Groner's gives both forward and aft draft. I added the aft draft figure. Parsecboy (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cylindrical boiler presumably means Cylindrical fire-tube boiler. I have no idea what a naval boiler is. Later Maybe naval boiler=Water-tube boiler. Haus^Talk 20:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A boiler designed for naval use? That's all I got. Parsecboy (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I think this sentence should be cited: "The Deutschland class battleships—the most powerful battleships yet built in Germany—were beginning to enter service by 1907."
- Herwig, p. 45 covers that. I don't like to put a citation at the end of every sentence if one will do for a whole paragraph - seems like over-citing to me. Parsecboy (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other

I tripped over "Her sisters" and would prefer to see "Her sister-ships". Likely a matter of personal style, but wanted to at least mention it.
- I changed a couple of them to "sister ships" to mix up word choice. Thanks for reviewing the article, by the way. Parsecboy (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

It's a pleasure to get back into the swing of GA-reviewing with such a prolific editor. I think that, vis-a-vis all ship articles, providing a level of detail about equipment beyond names and model numbers would be a service to our readers, but it's certainly not this article's responsibility to break that ground. Well done, and please ping me when you take this article to ACR so I can watch. Cheers. Haus^Talk 21:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. For the technical information, I generally prefer to keep the in-depth stuff in class articles and give only a brief overview in the individual ship articles, but then that's just my preference (with the exception of unique ships, of course). I do know Sturmvogel likes to have more technical stuff in the ship articles, but again, that's his preference. I'll let you know when this one goes to ACR, but there are a bunch of articles waiting :) Parsecboy (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Haus^Talk 20:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]