Talk:Deutschland-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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)

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)