Talk:Wiesbaden-class cruiser/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 21:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Guess I'll take this one too... Again, review up shortly... Dana boomer (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

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):

   • Lead, "in the shortly before". In the what?
   • Lead, "were built to this class" Is "built to" common vernacular in naval writing? I would think it sounded better as "built in" or "built of".

   • Both fixed - that's the problem with rewriting sentences several times :)

   • Dimensions and machinery, "Marine steam turbines" Is Marine a brand? Otherwise, why is it capitalized?

   • Groner capitalizes it, so I followed that.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Same question - what makes No Limits Diving a reliable source?

   • See my reply at the SMS Wiesbaden GAN page.

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:

A few thoughts on prose and one question on the reliability of a source; other than that, everything looks good. Let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for reviewing these articles. Parsecboy (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, everything looks good, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. As always, nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)