Talk:Ersatz Yorck-class battlecruiser/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet

   1. The Armament section contains metric and non-metic comparisons for each number, while most of the rest of the article does not. For consistency sake, either all or none of the measurments should have meters/yards comparisons.
      1. I've added conversions to all of the figures in the prose and the infobox. For some reason, I have a tendency to forget those :) Parsecboy (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Not Yet

   1. Ref #5 seems to have some problem with the URL title, since the URL seems to be showing up alongside the title.
   2. What makes the navweps.com website a Reliable Source?
      1. I fixed the reference (I'm not sure exactly what the problem was, but something about spacing). As for Navweaps, the short answer is because the author cites his sources. There was a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard that has been preserved in Tomstar's userspace, which can be found here. I hope that addresses your concerns. Parsecboy (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass No problems there.

7. Overall:

   On Hold while a few issues are addressed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Very good. Passing the article. —Ed!^(talk) 10:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)