Talk:German battleship Bismarck/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:09, 6 July 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

 * 1) There are four disamb links according to the checker Arcona,Brest,Halifax,Scuttle
 * 2) The displacement in the text and inf box do not match 50,300 t (49,500 long tons) to 50,900 t (50,100 LT; 56,100 ST)
 * 3) References for book printed locations we have Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press - Annapolis: Naval Institute Press - Annapolis: United States Naval Institute Press
 * Good work just the three minor points. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jim, they should all be fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)