Talk:Kaiser-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will review the article shortly. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The description of the armor scheme for the casemate guns is unclear. This began a confused 2 hour long battle between the British destroyers and the German cruiser and destroyer screen, repeatedly at very close range. This doesn't make sense unless it's a typo for reportedly at close range

   I changed it to "frequently", does that make more sense? Parsecboy (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   What is the thickness of the turret face armor?

   Groner's doesn't state what the turret faces were, just the sides and roof. Conway's simply has "turrets: 300-80mm." I'd assume the faces were as thick as the sides--300mm. Parsecboy (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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: