Jump to content

Talk:SMS Jagd

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSMS Jagd has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starSMS Jagd is part of the Avisos of Germany series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 26, 2013Good article nomineeListed
January 28, 2021Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Jagd/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dank (talk · contribs) 17:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review

  • The toolbox checks out.
  • "an aviso, of the Imperial German Navy": no comma
  • "served in the Training Squadron in 1891, as a torpedo boat flotilla leader": no comma
  • "form": from
  • "used as a firing platform for torpedo training. She was used in this capacity until she was broken up for scrap": used as a firing platform for torpedo training until she was broken up for scrap
  • Otherwise:
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): 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):
  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:
    - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Dan - you know, the comma overuse thing used to be a hallmark of my bad writing, but I thought I had kicked that particular habit long ago. Guess not as completely as I thought, at any rate. Parsecboy (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've always felt a little uncomfortable in my role as reviewer; I know it's much easier for prose reviewers to see these things than for people who are trying to get everything else right, and I hope writers don't feel like I'm shaming them ... but I suspect that happens. I don't think you have anything to worry about with your writing. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

[edit]

here. Parsecboy (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]