Talk:SMS Kaiser Barbarossa/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Initial comments
[edit]Looks good so far, some minor points though:
- There are no citation errors and external links check out (no action required),
One dab link (to Schichau) which needs to rectified; and
Done- The prose is a little wooden in places but this won't hold it back in my opinion.
More to follow. Anotherclown (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Overall summary
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Well referenced.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Well referenced.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- Overall, another good article IMO. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to review the article, Anotherclown. Parsecboy (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. Anotherclown (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to review the article, Anotherclown. Parsecboy (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)