# Talk:SMS Emden (1916)

I've assessed the article as B-class, but there are two tweaks to be made.

The "Construction" section refers to sister ship Königsberg. Can you double-check the dates are for Emden and change the names or the dates as necessary
Can you add the relevant construction dates to the infobox?
Other than that, it all appears good. -- saberwyn 01:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Both fixed. Thanks for pointing those out. Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Expanding the Battle of Cocos article (which involved the previous Emden) is one of my pet drafts at the moment. I've got a fragment of information indicating that after the battle, the Kaiser announced a new Emden would be built, and that she would bear an Iron Cross on her bow. Do you have any information linking that statement to the actual naming and building of this ship, and was she actually awarded with the Iron Cross (and if so, how exactly did that work?) -- saberwyn 01:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

And I found information confirming it in the lead always the last place looked. Would it be worth copying that content into the body of the article? -- saberwyn 02:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
What's in the article now is from Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships and is somewhat minimal in details. The last gentleman-of-war: the raider exploits of the cruiser Emden references this on several pages, see for instance the captions for the three subsequent Emdens (no page number, just search for "iron cross"). I haven't seen anything specifically about the naming of this or the third Emden. Herwig's "Luxury" Fleet talks about construction programs (including referencing the loss of 13 light cruisers in the first 2 years of the war, and the need to replace them), but doesn't tie this ship specifically to the first Emden. Parsecboy (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Emden (1916)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sven Manguard Wha? 21:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
GAN Quicksheet 1.23 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments:
I don't really see myself getting into MilHist GAN reviews in the longer term because I really don't have any familiarity with any of this. It is the cup though, so I'm taking it as an excuse for trying new things. 
1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright:  Needs work
- "On 14 October, Emden participated in an operation to clear the Kassar Wiek of Russian naval forces." - Consider instead "On 14 October, Emden participated in an operation to clear the Kassar Wiek, a XXXXX, of Russian naval forces.". This would unnecessary if there was an article on the Kassar Weik, but since there isn't, and because that one isn't particularly self explanatory, I'd be nice if you made this change.
That's a good point - added a description of what it is. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
b. MoS compliance:  Acceptable
2. Accurate and verifiable:

a. provides references:  Acceptable
- I don't own any of these books, but with your volume of work, if you were up to something dirty I'd think someone would have caught you a long time ago. Therefore I'm not that worried that I can't see the sources.
b. proper citation use:  Acceptable
c. no original research:  Acceptable
3. Broad in coverage:  Section acceptable 

a. covers main aspects:  Acceptable
b. focused/on topic:  Acceptable
4. Neutral:  Section acceptable 
5. Stable:  Section acceptable 
6. Image use:  Section acceptable 

a. license/tagging correct:  Acceptable
b. relevant/properly captioned:  Acceptable
7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:

a. images that should have alt texts have them:  Acceptable
- The image probably dosen't need one.
b. general catch all and aesthetics:  Acceptable

Comments after the initial review:
It's almost scary how little work was needed on this one. Truly you've ironed out the kinks. This is very close to getting the green button, and you my peas award; there's just one thing in 1a. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
PROMOTED You fixed the one issue that needed fixing, so this is good to go. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)