Talk:Sachsen-class ironclad/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email)

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

It is reasonably well written:
1. "The German navy regarded the ships as poor sea boats, with severe rolling, and a tendency to ship water." - what does it mean to "ship water?" put a note in or explain please.
  Changed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. "The four ships remained with the fleet until shortly after the turn of the century." - I don't think "turn of the century" is very encyclopedic. Please give a more specific date.
  The specific dates are given in the rest of the paragraph - does "...until the first decade of the 20th century" sound better? Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. What was the significance of this class? Were there other coastal defense-type ships built after or was the idea scrapped? Sounds like this class didn't operate successfuly and a little look at the bigger picture might help.
  The Navy went on a battleship building hiatus until the Siegfried-class coastal defense ships of the late 1880s - added a bit to this effect. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
1. The infobox needs a cite for fast reference.
  Do you mean you want footnotes in the infobox? Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Last ref in the "Armament and armor" is malformed and showing up in the text.
  Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage:
Good
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Good
It is stable:
Good
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Good
Overall:
A very good article already. On hold pending a few additions. —Ed!^(talk) 04:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, passing the GA now. —Ed!^(talk) 22:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]