Talk:Type 1936C destroyer/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 00:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Lead and infobox:
  • "Kriegsmarine" must be in italics
  •  Done
  • an improvement upon the "of" Type 1936A and Bdestroyers
  •  Done
  • Work "The construction" was constantly interrupted
  •  Done
  • by numerous problems, chief among them dominantly due to air raids
  •  Done
  • comma is missing after "Z46 and Z47" in the last sentence of the lead.
  •  Done
  • were blown up in their shipyards by Allied troops; as they're in construction they'll obviously be stationed at their shipyards only, no need of special mention.
  •  Done
  • Link the units in infobox; waterline, standard load, overall, design load, nautical miles etc. and the also the items in "armament" field
  •  Done
• Section 1;
  • Everything looks fine, except that a few links are to added. In para 2, you can add links of LC.41 twin turrets, anti-aircraft guns, depth charge launchers etc.
  •  Done
• Section 2;
  • as an improvement upon "of" both the Type 1936A and B destroyers.
  •  Done
  • two ships of the class, Z46, and Z47 were ordered on 8 October 1941; Please check the use commas at the pennant numbers.
  •  Done
  • but began "was restarted" again
  •  Done
  • The building "construction" of the two ships
  •  Done
• I am not sure about the copyright statues of the image used in infobox. It is taken from a website which has no statement for the usage. Also it is clear that the file is created the uploader.

  The uploader of the image is the owner of the website, as seen [1].

• No plagiarism detected.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I believe I have done all you have asked. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)