Talk:D-class cruiser (Germany)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) 23:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments

 * No disabiguation links
 * External link checked ok
 * I know Navweaps has come up before but I do not remember if it has been proved a reliable source ?
 * It's been discussed a number of times, especially as the criteria for FAC have been strengthened (see for instance here) and AFAIK the general consensus is it's fine for articles up to GA, but not sufficient for A class and above. Parsecboy (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A class of ship that never really got off the drawing board, not much more that can be said. So just the question over Navweaps. As usual a good article in all but the green dot. Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)