Talk:Ersatz Yorck-class battlecruiser/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * Not Yet
 * 1) The Armament section contains metric and non-metic comparisons for each number, while most of the rest of the article does not. For consistency sake, either all or none of the measurments should have meters/yards comparisons.
 * 2) I've added conversions to all of the figures in the prose and the infobox. For some reason, I have a tendency to forget those :) Parsecboy (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Not Yet
 * 1) Ref #5 seems to have some problem with the URL title, since the URL seems to be showing up alongside the title.
 * 2) What makes the navweps.com website a Reliable Source?
 * 3) I fixed the reference (I'm not sure exactly what the problem was, but something about spacing). As for Navweaps, the short answer is because the author cites his sources. There was a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard that has been preserved in Tomstar's userspace, which can be found here. I hope that addresses your concerns. Parsecboy (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) Overall:
 * On Hold while a few issues are addressed. — Ed! (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Very good. Passing the article. — Ed! (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)