Talk:SMS Prinz Eugen (1877)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSMS Prinz Eugen (1877) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starSMS Prinz Eugen (1877) is part of the Ironclads of Austria-Hungary series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 29, 2016Good article nomineeListed
December 22, 2018Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Prinz Eugen (1877)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 00:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well constructed, will get back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1[edit]

  • Para 2; Sentence 1; There is comma(,) missing after the word "Krupp" in "....al.) guns manufactured by Krupp".
  • Para 3; sentence 1; The word "protection" may be removed because the word "armor" itself means something that was made to protect the body. It need not be followed by protection again.
    • Done both

Section 2[edit]

  • Para 2; At the begining of the paragraph, the year was mentioned as 1880. But in the later sentences, it was mentioned that the ship attended the opening ceremony of Barcelona Universal Exposition that took place in 1888. At this instant the year 1888 was not mentioned. So a general reader may understand that the BUE also happened in 1880. So please mention the year in the sentence Barcelona Universal Exposition was put in.
  • Para 3; sentence 4; Letter "c" of "conversion" must be capitalized.
    • Both fixed

References[edit]

  • It is not necessary to mention the page numbers in ref section, because they were already mentioned while citing the book in inline citations i.e notes section.
  • In the case of 8th citation (notes section) i.e "Naval and Military Notes", p. 412 and 4th reference in the reference section having page numbers ranging from 409–427 contradict each other. I suggest removing the page numbers from the reference section.
    • See my comments on the Don Juan review - page numbers are appropriate in the ref section.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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) 00:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SMS_Prinz_Eugen_(1877)&oldid=1210427096"