Talk:SMS Hindenburg/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a very nice piece of work, as usual.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   aye

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   aye

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):

   aye

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   your usual fine work. I made a couple of very minor tweaks, relating to wordiness in the lead and consistency of numbers in the text.

Thanks, Auntieruth. Your review and copyedits are much appreciated. Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WOW you're quick. I just did this.  :) do you want to add the article to the appropriate lists? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I happened to see you make a few edits to the article, so I checked to see if you had created the review page :) I can add it to the list at WP:GA if you like. Thanks again! Parsecboy (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

sure go ahead--the fun part -- I think you already did it anyway. I've pulled it from the "reviews needed" section. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)