Talk:Mackensen-class battlecruiser/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet

   1. The Armament section contains metric and non-metic comparisons for each number, while most of the rest of the article does not. For consistency sake, either all or none of the measurments should have meters/yards comparisons.
   2. The further reading section only has one book, so it should probably be merged with references, expanded or removed. If it is kept, the book should be put into a {{cite book}} template.
      1. I added conversion templates and cut the "further reading" section. Another editor added it to a good deal of ship articles. Parsecboy (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Not Yet

   1. Ref #11 seems to have some problem with the URL title, since the URL seems to be showing up alongside the title.
   2. What makes the navweps.com website a Reliable Source?
      1. I fixed the ref, and see my comment here regarding Navweaps. Parsecboy (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass No problems there.

7. Overall:

   On Hold while a few issues are addressed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article, Ed. Parsecboy (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Very good. Passing the article. —Ed!^(talk) 10:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)