Talk:Kaiser Max-class ironclad (1875)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 06:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	the dimension conversions to feet are in decimal, but should probably be in ftin Good point 24-cal etc needs explanation The article is linked - that's usually sufficient The 47 and 25 mm guns in the infobox are listed and converted in cm, not mm Whoops, good catch
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	There is a sentence which needs a citation, I've tagged it. Fixed
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No date of publication for SMS Kaiser Max.jpg or SMS Don Juan d'Austria.tif No, but the NHHC's position is that all photos in their collection are in the public domain, at least in the US. Given their age, they're both very likely PD under EU law as well. OK, but I think it is necessary to use {{PD-because}} and link (within the template) to the webpage which shows the NHHC's position on images in their collection. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply] Both fixed now. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~On hold for seven days for a few points to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)~~Passing, all points addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for reviewing the article, Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply] No prob. Just the image licensing thing to address now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]