# Talk:SMS Ariadne

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Ariadne/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 16:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this soon. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Another technically sound article, some prose issues jump out at me though.
"On the morning of 28 August, Ariadne had been rotated out of the front patrol line and laid at anchor in the entrance of the Weser River in support of the cruisers and torpedo boats on patrol.[6]" If we do not have an exact date for this, why not address it further down. We know the assigned duty, but it doesn't make sense to point out the docking now and have the rest chronologically out of place. I'd drop this into the August 28 section, it'd work better there.
"Five days earlier, several British commanders had submitted a plan to attack the patrol line with the light cruisers and destroyers of the Harwich Force, commanded by Commodore Reginald Tyrwhitt." Again, I'd deal with this as 'On August 23rd, ...' Since we have a date, might as well stick to chronological order.
"Two battlecruisers closed in, until they were firing their 12 in (300 mm) guns at a distance of 3,000 m (9,800 ft), point-blank range for guns of that caliber. Ariadne returned fire as best she could, but to no effect." - Is confusing. Were they firing their guns as they closed in? I'd assume so. And the 'point blank range' might be a bit confusing as well, if by mechanical minimum distance upon which the ship could make effective fire, then yes, but I'd mention it as such. The reason being 'point-blank' doesn't make sense to most readers when it is nearly 2 miles away.
"At 14:15, the British checked their fire and allowed Ariadne to limp away." - I'd use 'ceased fire' instead of 'checked their fire'. Just a wording choice.
Images, neutrality, and such are all fine. The prose issues are the one thing which could be improved and as such, I'll put this one on hold until it can be addressed. Again, tiny issues, but I might as point them out. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh! 'Ariadne at the Battle of Heligoland Bight' isn't a photograph, right?  It doesn't seem to be, but if is an artwork of some form, you might want to point it out. It is hard to tell if it is paint, watercolor or sketch, so I leave it up to you. I think it would only be fair as the thumbnail seems almost photographic at that size. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I rearranged things to fit better chronologically, as you suggested. As for the bit on the battlecruisers, a couple of lines up, it says that the British started firing at Ariadne. And as for point-blank range, I've added a link to that article (and by the way, point-blank refers to the distance at which you can point a gun directly at its target and hit it, without adjusting for elevation to account for gravity). "Ceased fire" is a bit tighter, so that sounds good to me. Thanks again, Chris. Parsecboy (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
All set, check. Passed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"She was built by the Imperial Dockyard in Danzig". "Ariadne was ordered under the contract name "D" and was laid down at the AG Weser shipyard in Bremen". So, where was the place of construction? An article in the German wiki does not mention anything about the Imperial Dockyard in Danzig.--Валерий Пасько (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)