# Talk:Ottoman ironclad Asar-i Tevfik

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ottoman ironclad Âsâr-ı Tevfik/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 15:35, 22 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) 15:35, 22 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 the criteria for passage to Good Article status. Before 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! -- Caponer (talk) 15:52, 22 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 ironclad, establishes the ironclad's necessary context, and explains why the ironclad is notable.
In the introduction sentence, I would format it as such: Âsâr-ı Tevfik (Ottoman Turkish: "God's Favor")[1] was an ironclad warship of the Ottoman Navy built in the 1860s...
Sounds good to me.
Reword the sentence: "While operating against Bulgarian positions in February 1913, she ran aground; after which, Bulgarian field artillery shelled the ship." Or something like this.
How about inserting "...artillery then shelled..."?
The image of the Ottoman Ironclad Asar-i Tewfik is released into the public domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
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

Should the first sentence specify that it was an entire squadron of the Ottoman Navy?
Sure
The image of the line-drawing of Âsâr-ı Tevfik '​s original configuration is released into the public domain and is free for use here.
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

The image of Âsâr-ı Tevfik as originally built is released into the public domain and is therefore free to use here.
Add comma after "In June" in the second paragraph of the Russo-Turkish War subsection.
Done
"On the night of 23–4 August 1877" should be "On the night of 3–4 August 1877."
No, it's the 23rd and 24th - but fixed now.
Per Wikipedia:Inline citation, inline citations should be consolidated at the end of the sentences and paragraphs in numerical order. However, this is merely a suggestion as WP:INTEGRITY may allow the usage of inline citations within a sentence.
Under the First Balkan War subsection, the times should be specifically mentioned as being A.M.
The article uses 24-hour time (see for instance the 13:00 referenced in that section)
The painting depicting the Greek fleet during the Battle of Elli is released into the public domain and is free to use here.
Parsecboy, you've done it again sir. Congratulations on a job well done. I hereby pass this article to Good Article status! -- Caponer (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)