Talk:M-class cruiser

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:M class cruiser/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 14:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Status

This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s).

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

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:

Discussion

Regarding the failing points:

1. 2(a): The article is almost entirely based on one source (12/18 references). Though I notice that most of the paragraphs have two citation, I would like to receive a comment on why the "Gröner, Erich (1990). German Warships: 1815–1945. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-790-9." book received that much weight.

   Groner's book is based entirely on official German Navy records, what survived the war, at least. For ships like this class that were never completed, it's usually the case that a variety of referencing is impossible. See for instance Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship, a Featured Article on a Soviet battleship design that relies heavily on one source. FWIW, the entry in Conway's is more limited than what Groner has, though where the two overlap there are no disagreements. Parsecboy (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

2. 2(a): I would recommend to move the two references to Navweaps.com to the References section and provide the footnotes the same way as it is done with books.

   Web sources aren't typically placed in the References section - see again the Sovetsky Soyuz article for an example.

   OK, may be you could reduce the number columns? In a current form the web references are unnecessarily torn, IMHO. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   Done. Parsecboy (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

3. 6(a), 6(b): is it possible to provide at least some images? Though it isn't obligatory, it would be of a benefit for the article. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

   It would be nice, but there's nothing I've been able to track down. There's probably a design blueprint somewhere in the Bundesarchiv, but I can't exactly go get it :) Parsecboy (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)