Talk:German destroyer Z33

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:German destroyer Z33/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 06:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I will take this one, comments to follow in next few days. Zawed (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• There is several uses of "damaged", including two in the same sentence. Consider paraphrasing some of these.
  • Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Modifications

• "they were replaced by weapons from the taken from the wreck of the heavy cruiser Lützow": the first "from the" needs to be deleted
• The section refers to 15 cm; 3.7 cm; 2 cm: shouldn't there be dashes in there for consistency with previous usage where the "centimetre" is recited in full?
  • No, the MOS says a non-breaking space between abbreviated measurements, not a dash.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Service history

• link Lützow (and shouldn't it be the Lützow?
  • Linked in the Modifications section. You can use "the ship", but you need to be consistent and I generally don't use it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Whoops, apologies, I overlooked that. Zawed (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Other stuff

• Image tags check OK
• No dab links
• No dupe links
• No external links so no issues there

Overall, minimal issues and those that are there should be straightforward to address. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2018 (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:

All good, passing as GA now. Zawed (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)