Talk:Kaiser-class battleship/GA1

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

I will review the article shortly. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The description of the armor scheme for the casemate guns is unclear. This began a confused 2 hour long battle between the British destroyers and the German cruiser and destroyer screen, repeatedly at very close range. This doesn't make sense unless it's a typo for reportedly at close range
 * I changed it to "frequently", does that make more sense? Parsecboy (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * What is the thickness of the turret face armor?
 * Groner's doesn't state what the turret faces were, just the sides and roof. Conway's simply has "turrets: 300-80mm." I'd assume the faces were as thick as the sides--300mm. Parsecboy (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail: