Talk:SMS Jagd

SMS Jagd is currently a Warfare good article nominee. Nominated by Parsecboy (talk) at 21:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Military history: Maritime / European / German B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force

Ships B‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

GA Review

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)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
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]