 | SMS Stuttgart has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
 | SMS Stuttgart is part of the Light cruisers of Germany series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:SMS Stuttgart/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 23:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm deeply impressed with the quality of the prose, grammar, and general layout of this article; it was virtually flawless. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation
This article uses a decent quantity of reputable third-party references, and makes many citations of them. None of the information's verifiability appears to have been left to chance. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
- (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
- (c) it contains no original research
The article seems to cover all essential aspects of the topic for which relevant, reliable information was available, and I haven't spied any trivia within the text. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)
The article shows no bias towards or against its topic. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
According to the 50 most recent edits to the article, no edit warring has taken place. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The only image used in the article is a public domain image, with a valid license included in its file. As the image depicts a diagram of the general structure of the class of vessels to which the topic of the article belongs, the image serves a relevant illustrative/informative purpose in the article. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 08:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
I'm confident after my review of this article that it meets and satisfies the GA criteria, and am happy to add it to the list of War and military GA articles. Congratulations! Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)