Talk:SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   watch your compound adjectives like 24-centimeter in the lead. Just add |adj=on if you're using a template. Shouldn't it be "the" flagship in the lead? And no 4th February, just 4 February. Might be worthwhile to add decomissioning dates to the career infobox, but that's your call.

   I fixed the convert template and the 4th Feb (probably something I missed when I rewrote the article) and added the date the ship was struck (I don't have a specific decommissioning date). Isn't it already "the flagship"? Parsecboy (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: