Talk:Königsberg-class cruiser (1927)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dank (talk · contribs) 21:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starting now. - Dank (push to talk) 21:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox reports that there's a link to Königsberg class cruiser (1927) (without the hyphen), but the only one I can find is the link to Category:Königsberg class cruisers (1927). - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It was probably in Template:WWIIGermanShips. Should be fine now. Parsecboy (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, toolbox checks out.
"The Königsberg class was ... their": singular "was", plural "their" (Since "They" follows, probably go plural with the whole thing ... The Königsberg-class ships were ...)
- - I went with "These ships were the first of the Reichsmarine with a modern cruiser design; their predecessor ..." - Dank (push to talk)
"their predecessor, Emden": their predecessor, Emden,
- Fixed.
"with a main battery of nine 15 cm (5.9 in) guns and twelve 50 cm (20 in) torpedo tubes": with a main battery of nine 15 cm (5.9 in) guns and with twelve 50 cm (20 in) torpedo tubes (so people won't think the torpedoes were in the main battery)
- Sounds fine to me.
"used in experiments with using": repetition
- Should read better now.
"were very crank": The wiktionary page you're linking to has a noun with that meaning, but not an adjective. It's not in M-W.
- It's in the wrong section - you wouldn't say "the ship is a crank", you'd say "the ship is crank(y)". See for instance dictionary.com, which has it as an adjective. And it is in the online Mirriam-Webster (here, it's the 5th entry), also as an adjective. I'll be correcting the Wiktionary entry accordingly. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake, I didn't read far enough in M-W. How about "cranky"? I think that's going to be more familiar to the so-called "general reader". - Dank (push to talk) 14:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sounds fine to me.
"but these were replaced later": replaced later
- Done.
"Throughout the course of their careers, the ships' anti-aircraft batteries were repeatedly revised and improved.": Either drop the introductory phrase, or if you want to emphasize when they were revised, be more specific about that.
- I was trying to make clear that they weren't just modified once and were done, that it was a continual process. I feel like cutting the phrase leaves the reader saying "when?"
  - I went with "The ships' anti-aircraft batteries were revised and improved throughout the course of their careers."; does that work? - Dank (push to talk)
"on either ends": on either end
- Fixed.
I'm not sure what you can do about this, but the Armor section repeats the word "thick", like, a lot.
- I just cut them out in most places, and there shouldn't be any loss of meaning.
Otherwise:

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: Yes

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: Yes
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: Yes

C. No original research: Yes
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: Yes

B. Focused: Yes
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: Yes
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: Yes
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Yes. Images are good.

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Yes
Overall:
Pass or Fail: On hold pending resolution of my initial comments. - Dank (push to talk) 23:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing the article, Dan, I appreciate your copy-editing advice as always. Parsecboy (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Pass. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]