Talk:SMS Goeben/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Although the bit about being the first capital ship to suffer aerial attack is cited in the lead, it would be good to expand on that in the main body. If it's the 1918 attack that's meant, the significance should be tied to it in the prose.

B. Focused:
Under Black Sea Operations, it looks a bit odd to jump from the 1916 subsection to 1918 with no obvious explanation. If she was suspended from ops all through 1917, best mention that. A possibility is to have the previous subsection titled 1916–17, and the last sentence of that subsection read ...Admiral Souchon was forced to suspend operations by Yavuz and Midilli for the rest of the year and into 1917. or some such.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Everything else looks good; ready to pass when you can deal with the above comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a line in the prose to point out it was the 1918 attack that was the first air attack on a capital ship, and fixed the 1916-18 gap. As for the bit about it being offered to West Germany for a memorial, I couldn't find that mentioned in any of my sources on hand, so I removed it. I know I read it somewhere, but can't remember where it was. Maybe it was just in the previous version of the article. Thanks for looking over the article! Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tks mate. Before finalising, what's your response to Storm's point on the talk page re. a possibly earlier first aerial attack on a capital ship? I don't doubt the veracity of your citation but be nice to deal with any contradictory claims... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I hadn't seen that until now. I responded to him there, but I'm wondering if the distinction is that Goeben/Yavuz was the first successfully bombed capital ship. I seem to think the Germans never actually managed to hit Slava in the earlier raids, which might be the important distinction. If that turns out to be the case, then the wording here will have to be tweaked slightly, and maybe a note regarding the attacks on Slava added as well. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Germans hit Slava in 1916 with a couple of light bombs that killed her captain. The Russians thought it was field artillery, but the Germans claimed it was a couple of seaplanes that did it in their official history. It's mentioned in the article on Slava. So I'd just drop the claim.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I think you're right. I'll take it out. Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay tks guys, this is a pass now - well done! Note I'm pushed for time and may not complete all the paperwork immediately, but will do so before the end of the day... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]