Jump to content

Talk:Bismarck-class battleship/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]
  1. REF 57 Breyer (1988) needs the year checking or a new book in the bibliography
    Damn typos ;) Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The other citations could have the years added as per WP:CITESHORT
    The only reason Breyer has the years is because there are two books of his. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Footnote 1 needs a cite
    Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ref 25 and 28 can be combined under ref name
    Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The first Breyer book is missing an ISBN if it has one issued
    According to worldcat it doesn't have an ISBN. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Edison, NJ - does NJ stand for New Jersey ? non American readers may not be familiar with state abbreviations and at least one article was opposed for this at I believe FA or A class assessment recently . It may be better to change them now to prevent any nitpicking later.
    Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. There are two disamb links that need fixing Brest Displacement
    Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Length the article text and the inf box does not agree. In the article its written - Bismarck class battleships were 251 m (823 ft) long overall and 241.6 m (793 ft) long at the waterline - while the inf box has - 241.6 m (792.7 ft) waterline 251 m (823.5 ft) overall
  9. Same with the beam - had a beam of 36 m (118 ft) to 36 m (118.1 ft)
  10. Draught also - designed draft of 9.3 m (31 ft) to 9.3 m (30.5 ft)
    That was a problem with the convert templates, I've fixed them. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The armaments in the inf box the last two are not converted into imperial measurements
    Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. and the fourth directly behind turret Caesar - this is the first mention of a turret name so its not clear which one is Caesar.
    Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. sixteen 37 mm (1.5 in) C/30 guns in eight dual mounts, twelve 20 mm (0.79 in) guns - its written as 16 × 3.7 cm and 20 × 2.0 cm in the inf box and I'm sure Germany measured their guns in CM not MM so I think the CM is correct.
    Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Experiences with other ships, however, revealed the necessity of a clipper bow - we don't know what a clipper bow is a search goes to clipper which could be linked or a note added.
    Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. A good read enjoyed it.

  1. One note I have always considered the term enlisted men as American and I'm not sure its correct for a German article. Just something to think on.

--Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Hmm, I've always thought it more of a general term, but then I am an American. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bismarck-class_battleship/GA1&oldid=1140331396"