Talk:Indefatigable-class battlecruiser/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jhbuk (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Overall very well written; I've just made a few minor points that I'd like to see at least commented on before it is made a GA. Looking at the criteria, I think this could become an A class with a little more work, although I'm not very familiar with A class review.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Minor points: Some inconsistency with linking, particularly place names; UK and Canada (eg) are linked, but not North Sea and Turkey. Also, some mentions of the ships have "the" before them and other times they do not - can this be standardised? Would it also be possible to have a linked list of all the ships in the infobox?  I think "Spotting tops" needs a little more clarification though under "fire control".
 * Deleted the redundant 'the's and added missing links. Links to the individual ships are done in the main body, not the infobox. What don't you understand about spotting tops?
 * I thought it would be beneficial to have something in the infobox like on Nimitz class aircraft carrier (under 'completed', instead of just a number), but I don't think it's too important. About the term "spotting top": to someone unfamiliar to the subject, I am unsure whether the meaning would be instantly familiar or apparent, and I thought it couldn't do any harm to add either a short phrase to clarify it or at least a link (Top (sailing ship)).
 * Added a link, a little bit of a exposition, and added to the caption of Australia to emphasize the spotting tops. See what you think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The references used are clearly reliable and cover everything (perhaps some more might be beneficial if it were to be further improved).
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Perhaps some unnecessary detail in some areas - I think the information about nomenclature in "General characteristics" could go in a note for example, but there are a few other areas as well.
 * Good catch; I've moved it to a note in the introduction. What other areas had too much detail?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading through it again, I don't think that there's any real problem there. Everything I have seen has some relevance to the ships.  What I was thinking of doing at first would be unnecessary.


 * 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):
 * Images used are beneficial and well placed.
 * 1) Overall:. This article is well written and contains plenty of well referenced information about the ships.
 * Pass:
 * 1) Overall:. This article is well written and contains plenty of well referenced information about the ships.
 * Pass: