Talk:Werner Hartenstein/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) 19:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Reading article Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

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:

Comments

Torpedo boat should be linked on first use it is linked in the WWII section to German torpedo boats of World War II

linked in the lead.

There is a sub section Second patrol but no mention is made of a first patrol

done

Also all headings are 2nd 3rd 4th while the text is second, third and fourth

done

Consistency with spelling out numbers over ten Following a fourteen month stay onboard - 26 crewmen - sank twelve ships - 25-second run-time etc

I believe to have done all. I assume to be innocent until proven guilty

He lowered speed - slowed ?

your wish is my command! If this is more appropriate I can change it

Two cites needed in the Laconia section

done

Not all the ships sunk in the table are cite din the text, so needs cites added

actually Röll 2011, pp. 153–154. refers to the entire table. How do you want me to reflect that?

Have used ref name in each section Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

On hold

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)