Talk:SMS Pillau

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Pillau/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 17:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Status

This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s). Please place Your comments in the Discussion section instead.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	(Note: it's a recommendation, the article passes on this criterion) The article has no issues here, though I would suggest to reduce overlinking. Eg., in the last paragraph of Later service the three last references can be safely joined, as they address the same range of the pages.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	(Note: it's a recommendation, the article passes on this criterion) The Italian service could be covered in more detail, though.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The caption of the only illustration features "click for a larger view" comment which is hardly appropriate.  Done The illustration itself doesn't help to understand the role of a ship in a battle. Is it really needed here?
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm not putting this on hold as the issues noted are too trivial to expect lengthy editing for addressing them.

Discussion

I've used the "click for a larger view" bit for this map in probably a dozen FAs, none of which have raised complaint (apart from a rather odd claim that it somehow violated copyright on a public domain map). It was actually suggested in one of the various FAs/ACRs. The map shows the movements of the two fleets, which are impossible to determine from the more focused detail given in the article, and would be useful to readers. Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not convinced with this. The thumbnails are specifically made clickable to provide access to the full resolution image. Regarding the image's importance: You might consider amending the image with Pillau's movements in order to actually render this image useful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It was specifically requested in some FAC or ACR, I'm not going to go through the trouble of digging through the 40-50 of them to find it. As for the map itself, the scale is far too small to include individual ships.

On to the citation comment above, I prefer to be as precise as possible to help anyone who might want to look it up. A 3-page citation isn't sufficient unless you're using material from all three pages in a single sentence, IMO. Parsecboy (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I spent some time hunting for any indication of consensus about "click for a larger view" question. WP:CAP contains the relevant policy; though it doesn't prohibit such caption elements, I still have a feeling that this part of a caption should not be there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please draw some more or less recent examples? I actually looked through several random recent FAs and GAs and found no example. Neither did your recent nomination I passed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That's because none of the Magdeburg class cruisers participated in the Battle of Jutland. SMS Rostock and SMS Frankfurt, two recent GAs, both use the map in the exact same format, as goes SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911), the most recent, relevant FA. Parsecboy (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The question of appropriate usage of the illustration still stands. If it is needed and can't be modified to indicate Pillau's movements, the caption should be probably rewritten to help the reader figure things out. The current caption then should be moved to "alt" attribute of the image (per WP:ALT). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, I've used this exact format on at least a dozen FAs, it's perfectly acceptable at FA level, which means it's ok for the much lower GA criteria. I'm not going to change it. The caption would not be useful as alt text (especially the references to colors of the map) and should be best left as is. Parsecboy (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like such illustrations are indeed the regular practice for GAs and FAs on the topic. I dismiss this issue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Second battle of Heligoland Bight

Article states Pillau suffered no damage during this action. The article on the Courageous class battlecruisers says Pillau was hit by 1 15 inch shell. I presume that would count as damage?1812ahill (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

According to everything I've read on the action, Königsberg was the only German cruiser damaged in the engagement. As far as I am aware, Pillau was not hit by anything during the battle. Parsecboy (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)