Talk:HSwMS Gotland (1933)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 15:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Due to excellent work by Sturmvogel 66 as part of a endeavour to improve the quality of Swedish warship coverage, this article looks close to Good Article status already. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• The article is of significant length, with 1,858 words of readable prose.
• The lead looks of an appropriate length at 144 words. Suggest merging the paragraphs as they are short.
• 83.9% of authorship is by Sturmvogel 66.
• It is currently assessed as a Start class article.
• Suggest comma after "The design was then reduced in size requiring one of the forward turrets be removed".
• Suggest comma after "By 1943, the Ospreys were worn out" as the next clause is independent.
• Suggest rewording "Four twin-gun mounts for 56-calibre 40 mm (1.6 in) M/36 AA guns were installed on the former aircraft deck; the two rearmost on the centreline and one on each broadside further forward." for clarity.
• There is a comment in the Talk page about a potential controversy about the Bismarck siting. I feel it is outside scope, but it could be worth mentioning in the text if there are reliable sources.

Assessment

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • Please add "be" before "stowed below deck"
   • Remove duplicate "made" in "The ship made made her first foreign voyage".
   • Add comma after "Antwerp, Belgium"

   These are now resolved. simongraham (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

   • I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar issues.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

• The layout is consistent with the relevant Manuals of Style, including a nice infobox.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • Looks good.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • References seem credible, and a good mix between contemporary and more recent sources.
   • Spot check confirms Campbell 1985, Lagvall 1991 and Preston 2002 are relevant and discuss the topic.
   • WP:AGF for the offline sources.

   it contains no original research;

   • There is no evidence of OR.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 2.0% chance of copyright violation, which means that it is extremely unlikely. The closest similarity is with a cited source. A cursory glance at some of the texts referenced not listed by Earwig confirms that there is no obvious close phrasing with offline material either.

2. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • There is good coverage.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The article covers everything that needs to be covered.

3. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The text seems generally clear and neutral, including Preston's reflections as well as Swedish and English language sources.

4. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • The infobox image has a relevant PD license.
   • The other images have appropriate PD or CC licenses.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • All images show views of the ship.

@Sturmvogel 66: Excellent work. Only a few small points (incidentally, trying a new review style too). simongraham (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

All done, see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: That all seems imminently satisfactory. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.