Talk:Braunschweig-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • The phrase still weaker than contemporary foreign battleships should be more closely attributed and/or cited.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On holdPassed

Other comments and/or questions (that do not affect GA review)

• I'd recommend using {{Infobox Ship Class Overview}} rather than {{Infobox Ship Career}}
• Some of the unit conversions seem to have extra or missing spaces, and a lot seem to be done manually. Is there any reason for not using {{convert}}?
• Just for my curiosity: why is the ship's name spelled Hessen rather than Heßen?

Just the one referencing issue is keeping this from passing. Two of the three "other" items above will enhance the article should you wish to pursue higher article assessments. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I cited the "weaker than contemporary..." phrase, and converted the infobox to the correct one (it was a relic from when I first started the article quite a long time ago). The reason I avoided using the convert template is that when I took SMS Von der Tann through FAC, someone made the comment that all of the convert templates were slowing the page load down. I wanted to avoid the problem in the future by just fat fingering the figures in. As for Hessen/Heßen, the state is Hessen in German (it's Hesse in English)—Heßen might be an archaic spelling of the state. Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The change looks great, so I'm changing to pass. I wouldn't worry about performance when using {{convert}}. The only time it's a "problem" (not much of one, at that) is if a viewer happens to be the first to view the page after an edit (usually only the person that edits it); otherwise the page is cached, making it load at the same speed as plain text. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense; it must've been that the series of edits to the article during the FAC made it so the page had to continually reload the templates. Thanks again! Parsecboy (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)