Talk:SMS Blücher/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet

   1. "starting with Von der Tann, on which construction began in 1907" - This sounds very awkward and should be reworded.
   2. More of the naval terms should be linked (waterline, transverse and longitudinal steel frames, tp name a few) to be safe. The average person knows very little about ship design and nautical terminology. I'd recommend going through the article and adding a link to any design elements that the average person doesn't immediately understand.
   3. Punctuation in large numbers should be consistent, Commas in all large numbers or none (1,000 or 1000) This is relatively minor but it is noticably inconsistent throughout the article.
   4. The external links sections should be at the very bottom of the prose, but with only one link I would question the necessity of it. You could just omit the section or add more links to it if you like, that's your call.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Not Yet

   1. "Blücher was considered to be a good sea boat..." By who? This sentence needs a source since it seems to be a subjective claim.
3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass No problems there.

7. Overall:

   On Hold while a few issues are resolved. -—Ed!^(talk) 01:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Ed. I think I've fixed everything you pointed out. Let me know if the "on which construction" bit is fine now. Parsecboy (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks just fine, thanks. The article now meets the GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. Well done! -—Ed!^(talk) 14:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)