Jump to content

Talk:Yugoslav submarine Smeli/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 20:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Peacemaker67, I've completed a quite thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I find that it exceeds the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I do have a few comments and questions below that must first be addressed before continuing. Once again, thank you for all your continued hard work and contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, 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):
  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:

Lede

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the submarine, establishes the submarine's necessary context, and explains why the submarine is otherwise notable.
  • The info box for the submarine is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the referenced cited therein.
  • Again, it's a shame there is no free image of the Smeli in the info box, but I repeat that this is not a deal breaker for GA.
  • The lede could stand to include more information from the Description subsection, such as mentioning her partial double hull design. Other descriptions of the size wouldn't hurt, either.
  • The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

History
Description

  • It should be mentioned in this section that Smeli means Daring in the Serbian language. (Or is Smeli a word from another one of the Yugoslav kingdom's languages?)
  • This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.

Construction

  • Should Maschinenfabrik be spelled out either in parentheses after "MAN" or with "MAN" in parentheses after Maschinenfabrik?
  • Smeli should be mentioned at least once in this subsection, rather than exclusively referring to her as "she."
  • This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.

Career and fate

  • I suggest adding the accent for "attaché" in the first paragraph.
  • It should be mentioned briefly with either the first or second mention of the Bay of Kotor that it is a bay of the Adriatic Sea to provide greater geographical context.
  • There should be a wiki-link to Scuttling in the prose for those readers not familiar with this act of deliberately sinking a ship.
  • As you can see, my only minor comments and concerns are the same as those with the Osvetnik article, and will require much fixing.
  • This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.

Thanks very much for your thorough review, West Virginian! I have addressed all your comments except the image, as I am yet to locate a PD image of her. My edits are here. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67, thanks for your timely response to my above comments regarding this article. Upon my re-review of the article, I find that you've adequately addressed my concerns and it is hereby a pleasure for me to pass this article to Good Article status! Congratulations on another job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]