Talk:SMS Baden (1880)/GA1
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Starstriker7's Sidekick in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Starstriker7 - public(talk) 04:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll take on this review. --Starstriker7 - public(talk) 04:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Criterion 1
editLead
edit- You referred to the Baden as the Württemberg once here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starstriker7's Sidekick
- Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Construction
edit- "Dürr boilers" - Can you wikilink this?
- Can you wikilink "armored citadel"?
- Unfortunately, there don't appear to be any articles that would be good links. Parsecboy (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Service History
edit- Decapitalize "History" in the section title.
- Can you wikilink "I Division" and "II Division" like in the other articles.
- "which displaced Württemberg and her three sisters to the II Division." - Wouldn't it make more sense to exchange Württemberg with Baden?
- Fixed the first and third, as for the links, I'm not entirely sure what the best course of action is. The article will probably end up at I Battle Squadron with section headers for the I and II Divisions, but I'd rather hold off adding links until I actually write the article and set up the section headers. Parsecboy (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I see what you mean. That does make the most sense. --Starstriker7 - public(talk) 00:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed the first and third, as for the links, I'm not entirely sure what the best course of action is. The article will probably end up at I Battle Squadron with section headers for the I and II Divisions, but I'd rather hold off adding links until I actually write the article and set up the section headers. Parsecboy (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Criterion 2
editThe article is thoroughly referenced with offline book references. Inline citations and separate reference sections are used. All clear here.
Criterion 3
editThe article has no obvious gaps, and is sufficiently focused.
Criterion 4
editThe article's tone is neutral.
Criterion 5
editThe article's revision history suggests that the article is stable.
Criterion 6
editBoth articles' images check out.
Overall comments
editKeep 'em coming. You are doing a great job. --Starstriker7 - public(talk) 04:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good. I'll pass this article momentarily. --Starstriker7 - public(talk) 00:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)