Talk:Deutschland-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jhbuk (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

I've done a litle copyediting, but I haven't found any real problems

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    General characteristics: No idea what "less marked weather helm" means? Couple of dab links [1]. Lead well written. "Schleswig-Holstein was hit by RAF bombers in December 1944 and sunk in shallow water. She was still able to use her armaments, however, until a fire permanently disabled the ship" I assume the ship was salvaged and repaired to some degree, rather than sitting on the sea bed with her superstructure out of the water?
    I linked weather helm and fixed the two dab links. Thanks for cathing those; I knew about David Beatty needing disambiguation when I wrote it, but apparently forgot after I hit "save" :) The latter is exactly what happened; it was the final months of the war, there was no time to do anything but use the guns were they sat. Parsecboy (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    Well referenced from a variety of sources
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    Can't think of anywhere that's lacking.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
    Several very good images; maybe another close-up may be beneficial, but this would probably be quite hard to find.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    Pass

Thanks for reviewing the article, Jhbuk. Parsecboy (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply