Talk:SMS Nassau/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I have elected to review this article against the Good article criteria, and should have my initial comments or feedback posted shortly. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have now completed a full review of the article and am placing it on hold pending the concerns outlined below. Overall, this is a very good article and is extremely close to Good article status. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Lead:

   "which also included Posen, Rheinland, and Westfalen." the "also" is a little redundant, an could probably be removed.

   Could you link North Sea?

   It is mentioned in the lead that Nassau was launched approximately 25 months after Dreadnought, but this is not mentioned in the prose. I would recommend either citing this in the lead, or adding a mention of this into the prose.

   Construction:

   "The ship retained 3-shaft triple expansion engines instead of more advanced turbine engines." - is it known why this was done?

   There are a few grammatical errors in the second note that you might want to check out.

   Service history:

   There is a large amount of repetition of the word "gulf" in this area. Would it be possible to reduce or substitute some of this?

   "The collision disabled one of her 5.9-inch guns, and left an 11.5-foot (3.5 m) gash above the waterline; this slowed the ship to 15 knots until it could be repaired." - I presume this is referring to Nassau? If so, this should be clarified.

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:

Thanks for reviewing the article, Abraham. I've fixed most of the issues (I think anyways. Is the second note better now?) The one thing remaining is the bit about the triple expansion vs. turbine engines. The short answer is, the German naval staff didn't think they were reliable enough for the big ships, so they stuck with the triple expansion engines. I'm away from my sources, so it'll have to wait a day or two before I'll be able to provide a specific citation for that and the launching date for Nassau and Dreadnought. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks good so far; nice work! Once you are done with the last few things, just post a comment on my talk page and I'll come back and run through the article once more. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am now satisfied that all of my comments have been addressed and that this article meets the Good article criteria, so I am passing it as such. Well done and congratulations! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)