Talk:German aircraft carrier II/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Petebutt (talk · contribs) 21:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC) I don't think this is working properly Petebutt (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- prose:
(MoS):
- prose:
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- 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):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments[edit]
I see nothing wrong with the Article in question. Would it be acceptable if I formally do the GA business or would it be better if I wait for the original reviewer to respond? Thurgate (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Critique[edit]
With only 10000 hp (7500 kW) there is no way the ship could reach 32 knots. If it was ten times more it would look reasonable. 18 March 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.237.96 (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)