Talk:Roon-class cruiser/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Hi there, I am happy to tell you that this article has passed GA without the need for any further improvement. Listed below is information on how the article fared against the Wikipedia:good article criteria, with suggestions for future development, mainly concerning additional details that would benefit the article. These are not required to achieve GA standard, but they might help in future A-class or FAC review process.[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

At several points in the article, particularly in the individual ship histories, the prose doesn't flow very well, with too many full stops breaking it up, can you work on this to make it smoother?

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

"The ships' casemates were placed too low, and as a result they were exceedingly wet" - what were, the casemates or the ships? Can you clarify this a bit - did they flood?
Why were the names changed at commissioning?
What happened (briefly) at the Battle of Åland Islands (and shouldn't that be Battle of the Åland Islands in English?)
Why was the seaplane conversion not carried out?

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Thankyou and congratulations, an excellent addition to Wikipedia:Good Articles. All the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]