Talk:Indefatigable-class battlecruiser/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jhbuk (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

Overall very well written; I've just made a few minor points that I'd like to see at least commented on before it is made a GA. Looking at the criteria, I think this could become an A class with a little more work, although I'm not very familiar with A class review.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Minor points: Some inconsistency with linking, particularly place names; UK and Canada (eg) are linked, but not North Sea and Turkey. Also, some mentions of the ships have "the" before them and other times they do not - can this be standardised? Would it also be possible to have a linked list of all the ships in the infobox? I think "Spotting tops" needs a little more clarification though under "fire control".

   Deleted the redundant 'the's and added missing links. Links to the individual ships are done in the main body, not the infobox. What don't you understand about spotting tops?

I thought it would be beneficial to have something in the infobox like on Nimitz class aircraft carrier (under 'completed', instead of just a number), but I don't think it's too important. About the term "spotting top": to someone unfamiliar to the subject, I am unsure whether the meaning would be instantly familiar or apparent, and I thought it couldn't do any harm to add either a short phrase to clarify it or at least a link (Top (sailing ship)).

Added a link, a little bit of a exposition, and added to the caption of Australia to emphasize the spotting tops. See what you think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The references used are clearly reliable and cover everything (perhaps some more might be beneficial if it were to be further improved).

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Perhaps some unnecessary detail in some areas - I think the information about nomenclature in "General characteristics" could go in a note for example, but there are a few other areas as well.

   Good catch; I've moved it to a note in the introduction. What other areas had too much detail?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Reading through it again, I don't think that there's any real problem there. Everything I have seen has some relevance to the ships. What I was thinking of doing at first would be unnecessary.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

3. 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):

   Images used are beneficial and well placed.

4. Overall:. This article is well written and contains plenty of well referenced information about the ships.

   Pass: