Talk:SMS Friedrich Carl (1867)/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: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    some publishers need location.
    Added. Parsecboy (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Were the guns rifled muzzle-loaders or breech-loaders?
    Groner doesn't say (and it's hard to tell - the Prussian Army made the switch to breech-loading guns at least as early as the Austro-Prussian War, but I don't know when the Navy did). Conway's has even less information on the guns, and Navweaps doesn't go back that far. I'd wager that they were breech loaders, but that's just a guess. Parsecboy (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough.
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Pics?
    None that I could find. Unfortunately, these old ships predate most of the naval annuals and the like where you could find PD-US photos or illustrations. I suppose I could claim fair use on a linedrawing from Conways or Groner. Parsecboy (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Pictures available on Commons of all three, albeit some with uncertain sourcing. I'm not really gonna get too worked up them if that's the case.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Same as the Prinz Adalbert image, there's no source so we can't use it, not even as fair use. Parsecboy (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A fair-use image would be good regardless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: