Talk:Design 1047 battlecruiser/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the Design section, the first two paragraphs start out with "As a result...", which is a little repetitive. Also, the second paragraph starts out with "As a result, they". By "they" I'm assuming you mean the Dutch, but this could be made explicit.
   • There is a clarification tag in the Design section, which I agree with - what is "smoother" deck protection?
   • Also in the Design section, it says "with the same number of 280 mm (11 in) guns in the same triple turrets as the Scharnhorst class". Ummm...how many guns is "the same"?
   • In the "End" section (that section title could be a little more descriptive, btw, although it's not a big deal), it says "with the first ship scheduled to be completed in only 1944,". Why "only"?
   • In the End section, could you give a little more information on why the start of WWII left these ships "virtually doomed"?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall a nice little article, but a few prose issues, so I'm placing the review on hold for now. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Dana boomer (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Hi again Dana! I believe that all issues have been addressed. Thanks for the review, and cheers! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for the quick response. The article looks great, so I'm passing it to GA status. Very nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)