Talk:French battleship Condorcet/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 17:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Will review. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

review

Very nice article. I have just a few comments:

• "rather unsuccessful ships" - is there a more precise word than "rather"?
  • The quote from the source reads: "Heavy on coal, they were considered unsuccessful ships, but, were, however, useful in the Mediterranean due to their first-class armament of many rapid-fire guns."
• "They were rated at 22,500 shaft " - sorry, is the "they" referring to the boilers or the ships?
  • Neither, the engines actually. Fixed.
• "75 mm anti-aircraft guns were installed during the war on the roofs of the ship's two forward 240 mm gun turrets." - MoS says not to start a sentence with a number.
  • Fixed.
• "to prevent Goeben from breaking out into the Mediterranean" - "breaking out" - does this mean escaping into the Mediterranean?
  • Yes, breaking through the blockade.
• "Channel Division" - what is this?
  • A unit of the French Navy, clarified. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass!

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)