Talk:SMS Wittelsbach/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

The article easily passes GA. For the sake of improvement further down the line, I've added a few comments here and there.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   There's a few minor grammar issues, and the article could benefit from a light copyedit before what I assume will be an eventual ACR/FAC, but it's nothing huge at the GAN level. It mostly has to do with an overusage of commas and words that could be eliminated for the sake of redundancy.

   B. MoS compliance:

   One minor issue, you use Wittelsbach, "she" and "the ship" to refer to the pre-dreadnought throughout the article. I'd stick to the first and one of "she" and "the ship", but not both. It makes for confusing reading.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   rather short service history compared to other articles you've written, but she appears to have had a fairly uninteresting career, so no objection from me.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   no evidence of edit wars, as you don't have pesky editors accusing you of an anti-German bias in this particular article

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   though just the one image, all copyrights check out.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Passes with colours flying. Well done!

Reviewer: Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 01:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)