Talk:SMS Elbing/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 23:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Status
[edit]This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s).
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Discussion
[edit]Please reply to the comments in the Status section here.
All three items should be addressed. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand your third point in the first box - "though" is a neutral word (unlike "luckily/unfortunately" or something like those). It's a simple statement of fact. Parsecboy (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I was meaning that though implies unlikeliness, which seems to contradict the situation. This issue is pretty minor. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's not how I read it - as far as I'm aware, "though" is similar "but", and has no connotation like you suggested. That said, it was extremely unlikely for the ship to have been hit, the British battlecruisers had the worst accuracy of any unit in the engagement, somewhere in the 2% range, and most of those came at much closer range than this, later in the battle. Heck, HMS New Zealand, the worst-shooting ship of the battle, scored a whopping 2 or 3 hits out of over 400 large-caliber rounds fired, less than 1% accuracy. Parsecboy (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Though my knowledge of the battle is by far less deep then your's, I also came to conclusion that the damage in that situation was unlikely. The process of review is now complete. Good work! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's not how I read it - as far as I'm aware, "though" is similar "but", and has no connotation like you suggested. That said, it was extremely unlikely for the ship to have been hit, the British battlecruisers had the worst accuracy of any unit in the engagement, somewhere in the 2% range, and most of those came at much closer range than this, later in the battle. Heck, HMS New Zealand, the worst-shooting ship of the battle, scored a whopping 2 or 3 hits out of over 400 large-caliber rounds fired, less than 1% accuracy. Parsecboy (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I was meaning that though implies unlikeliness, which seems to contradict the situation. This issue is pretty minor. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
BTW, the issues 1a3 – 1a5 are recommendations. I won't fail GA on this basis. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Re: crew size - ships typically had a larger wartime crew, which is what this discrepancy represents. I clarified that in the design section.
- Fixed the "them"s. Parsecboy (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)