# Talk:SMS Saida (1912)

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Saida/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 13:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Parsecboy, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Parsecboy, I've finished my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, and I assess that it meets all the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Prior its passage, however, I have shared below some comments and questions that must first be addressed. Thanks again for all your hard work on this article, as always! -- Caponer (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  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: 

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the cruiser, establishes the cruiser's necessary context, and explains why the cruiser is notable.
The info box is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the referenced cited therein.
The lede is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.
Design

Is there any information available about the namesake of Saida?
I'd assume a 19th century battle - Novara and Helgoland were named for the Battle of Novara (1849) and the Battle of Heligoland (1864) - according to the German wiki article, there was a battle of Saida in 1840, but it has no information on it, and we have no article here either. I'd guess that it was during the Egyptian–Ottoman War (1839–41), in which the Austrian Empire was a combatant, and there were naval operations off Sidon (the Arabic name of which is Saida) and indeed there is a redlink to Battle of Sidon (1840)
Helgoland is mentioned in the first and second paragraphs of the "Design" section, but I assume this should read Saida in both cases?
Yup - fixed.
This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.
Service history

It should be mentioned here and possibly in the lede that the shipyard was located in Monfalcone.
Added to the service history section
The first mention of Austria-Hungary in the prose could stand to be wiki-linked here.
Done
Helgoland is first introduced in this paragraph, which further leads me to believe that Helgoland is erroneously mentioned in the "Design" section.
In the second paragraph, Austro-Hungarian Navy is mentioned for the first time in the prose can be wiki-linked here.
Done.
The Otranto Straits should be mentioned and wiki-linked in the first paragraph of the battle subsection.
Switched the link from Otranto to the straits article, since the town wasn't the target anyway.
The map showing the location of the Straits of Otranto at the southern end of the Adriatic is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore free for use here.
The image of the British drifters sailing from their base in the Adriatic to the Barrage is released into the Public Domain is therefore free for use here.
In the Italian service subsection, there is mention that Saida and her sisters were the largest vessels of the former Austro-Hungarian Navy to see active service in the navies of their former enemies. This is definitely notable enough for inclusion in the lede to better represent this subsection there.
A good idea
This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.
Thanks for reviewing another article, Caponer! Parsecboy (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your timely response Parsecboy! I've reviewed the article and find it is ready to pass to GA status. Thanks again for all your great work on this article. -- Caponer (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Here as Venezia. Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The KuK archives in the Arsenel naval museum in Vienna refer to this class of ship as a "fast light cruiser". 109.153.75.163 (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The navy referred to them as "rapidkreuzer", but that's not an established ship type any more than "fast light cruiser" is. Most references call these ships light cruisers, so that's what Wikipedia uses. Parsecboy (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)