Talk:Habsburg-class battleship/GA1

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

Reviewer: Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I have elected to review this article against the Good article criteria, and should have my initial comments posted up shortly. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now completed a review of the article, and am placing it on hold pending a few issues outlined below. However, I am confident that these should not take too much effort to remedy. Well done so far. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Is there a particular reason why the metacentric height of the ships is in inches (imperial), while the rest of the article uses metric measurements?
 * Yeah, presumably I was reading directly from the USN source and forgot to switch it :)
 * "Habsburg and Árpád took part in their first fleet maneuvers in the summer of 1903." - Summer can be a little ambigious, due to the southern and northern hemispheres subject to this season at different times, so it may be best to clarify exactly when. Bit of the same issue with "At the outbreak of World War I in the summer of 1914".
 * Google Books isn't letting me see the page for the first instance, so I just changed it to "mid 1903." As for the second, I changed that to "late July 1914."
 * Could you please clarify Miklós Horthy's rank?
 * Done
 * There is a bit of inconsistency with the numerical presentations of the naval divisions, with both Roman numerials and numbers being used.
 * There was just the one (4th Division), right? I got that one, but if I missed one let me know.
 * 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):
 * Is there any informations on the planning/conception for the class or its design?
 * Nothing I've come across. Conway's 1860-1905 isn't nearly as good with that as the later volumes (which I guess is understandable, it was the first attempt, and of course it's going to be harder to find stuff on 100+ year old ships than it is on much newer vessels).
 * Is there any further information on the ships' service during the First World War? It just seems a little abrupt as is.
 * What's there is really all they did. The AH fleet didn't really see much more action than that either, with the exception of the faster cruisers and destroyers, and even they mostly sat in Pola and rusted too.
 * 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):
 * The images are fully licensed and fine, but I would recommend that alt text be added. Also, is it know which one of the ships the lead image depicts.
 * I added alt text to the lead image, but I haven't yet come across anything that identifies which ship it is.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I added alt text to the lead image, but I haven't yet come across anything that identifies which ship it is.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Well, I think any and all of my comments have been adequately addressed and as such this article meets the Good article criteria. Congratulations and well done! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)