Talk:French battleship Condorcet/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 17:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Very nice article. I have just a few comments:
 * Will review. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * review
 * "rather unsuccessful ships" - is there a more precise word than "rather"?
 * The quote from the source reads: "Heavy on coal, they were considered unsuccessful ships, but, were, however, useful in the Mediterranean due to their first-class armament of many rapid-fire guns."
 * "They were rated at 22,500 shaft " - sorry, is the "they" referring to the boilers or the ships?
 * Neither, the engines actually. Fixed.
 * "75 mm anti-aircraft guns were installed during the war on the roofs of the ship's two forward 240 mm gun turrets." - MoS says not to start a sentence with a number.
 * Fixed.
 * "to prevent Goeben from breaking out into the Mediterranean" - "breaking out" - does this mean escaping into the Mediterranean?
 * Yes, breaking through the blockade.
 * "Channel Division" - what is this?
 * A unit of the French Navy, clarified. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
 * b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
 * b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * c. no original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * no edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass!
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * no edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass!
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass!