Talk:German battleship Bismarck/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments
[edit]- There are four disamb links according to the checker Arcona,Brest,Halifax,Scuttle
- The displacement in the text and inf box do not match 50,300 t (49,500 long tons) to 50,900 t (50,100 LT; 56,100 ST)
- References for book printed locations we have Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press - Annapolis: Naval Institute Press - Annapolis: United States Naval Institute Press
- Good work just the three minor points. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jim, they should all be fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Good work just the three minor points. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)