Talk:SMS Pfeil (1860)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Pfeil (1860)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Parsecboy (talk · contribs) 12:43, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Dumelow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Happy to take a look at this one - Dumelow (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Responses all look good, will pass for GA - Dumelow (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

1. Well-written

Criteria: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• Worth mentioning the translation of her name?

• "Her entire propulsion system, including the masts and the funnel, was removed and a roof was erected over the hull to keep the elements out"

"Keep the elements out" struck me as a bit colloquial

Reworded

• "Nevertheless, as the Danish steam frigate Tordenskjold arrived to reinforce the main squadron, Scorpion and the other gunboats fired on her from afar."

Wasn't sure why Scorpion was being named here, should this be Pfeil?

Good catch

• "From September, Kapitänleutnant (Captain Lieutenant) Adolph Berger replaced Zembsch as the ship's captain. She was then decommissioned on 13 October and towed back to Dänholm."

Worth noting that the war was effectively over by August?

Good idea

• " In early 1871, she was moved to the flotilla stationed in Jade Bight, where she remained until 12 April, when she was removed from active service."

Again, might be worth mentioning when the war ended?

Also a good idea

• "The ship was ordered as part of a program to strengthen Prussia's coastal defense forces, then oriented against neighboring Denmark."

I am not sure this part of the lead is supported by the main text?

Good point, added a line on that

• "She next recommissioned during the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, but she did not engage any French warships. In poor condition by that time, she was struck from the naval register in 1872 and converted into a storage hulk. Her ultimate fate is unknown."

The main text only mentions that rotting was found in 1872 not that she was in poor condition in 1870

Made a bit more general

• The infobox says she served in the Imperial Germany Navy but the creation of this body is not mentioned in the text
  • Good catch
• Speed given as "9 knots (17 km/h; 10 mph)" in infobox and "9.1 knots (16.9 km/h; 10.5 mph)" in main text
  • Fixed

Rest of review to follow - Dumelow (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

2. Verifiable with no original research

Criteria: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; 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); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Resolved

• All information (except where stated in section 1) is cited inline throughout the article

• All sources are offline, the only source I have access to (Lyon) looks to confirm displacement, dimensions, propulasion and armament as stated in the article

• Will have to AGF on close paraphrasing but Earwig flags no issues from online sources

3. Broad in its coverage

Criteria: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Resolved

Shorty article but covers a short and relatively uneventful career in suitable detail

4. Neutral

Criteria: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Resolved

I found no issues with WP:NPOV

5. Stable

Criteria: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Resolved

• There is no evidence of disputes or edit warring in the article history or talk page

6. Illustrated

Criteria: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Image used is of a sister ship which is OK where an image of this ship isn't available but absolutely no source information is given. How do we confirm this is actually the ship stated and was created more than 120 years ago?

The image is in the chapter on Fuchs in Hildebrand et.al., which is presumably where the uploader got it, so that much is certain. Unfortunately, they don't provide a source for it (typically they at least provide an artist/photographer). Given that none of these vessels existed after the mid-1880s, it's highly unlikely that it was created after that. It also very much looks like a mid-late-1800s illustration. So I can't definitively prove that it was created more than 120 years ago, but all available evidence strongly suggests that it is. But I did just locate this sketch, which I can replace it with.

Thanks for reviewing another one! Parsecboy (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2025 (UTC)