Talk:L 20e α-class battleship/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Garyvp71 (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * This is awkward: Above the torpedo bulkhead, a splinter bulkhead, designed to protect against shell fragments and was 30 mm (1.2 in) thick, ran to the upper deck Link to Krupp and fuel oil. And links can be built into the conversion template with|This is awkward: Above the torpedo bulkhead, a splinter bulkhead, designed to protect against shell fragments and was 30 mm (1.2 in) thick, ran to the upper deck Link to Krupp and fuel oil. And links can be built into the conversion template with |lk=on.
 * I think I've got everything here. Does the sentence read better now? Parsecboy (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Better, but I think that it would be further improved by moving the thickness in front of the word "splinter" so that it's now a compound adjective.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. Parsecboy (talk) 10:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * Is it clearer now? Parsecboy (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Better, but I'm still a little baffled because the belt armor still extends somewhat below the waterline. But maybe it wasn't as far below as earlier practice.
 * Well, take a look at Bayern for instance; the main belt was about the same as here; 70 inches above lwl and 14 below, but then it continued down to 67 inches below lwl in reduced thickness. In this case, it just stopped completely at 14 inches below lwl. Perhaps I'll add a note giving this example. Parsecboy (talk) 10:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be helpful in explaining the rationale for the decision.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * 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:
 * I haven't seen a single one; Conway's is the only book of that type that has an entry (odd to me that Groner's doesn't), but it doesn't have a line-drawing. Parsecboy (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this one? http://dreadnoughtproject.org/plans/SM_Studienentwurf//Schnelle_GrosseKampfschiffe_4541_100dpi.jpg
 * 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:
 * I haven't seen a single one; Conway's is the only book of that type that has an entry (odd to me that Groner's doesn't), but it doesn't have a line-drawing. Parsecboy (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this one? http://dreadnoughtproject.org/plans/SM_Studienentwurf//Schnelle_GrosseKampfschiffe_4541_100dpi.jpg
 * I haven't seen a single one; Conway's is the only book of that type that has an entry (odd to me that Groner's doesn't), but it doesn't have a line-drawing. Parsecboy (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this one? http://dreadnoughtproject.org/plans/SM_Studienentwurf//Schnelle_GrosseKampfschiffe_4541_100dpi.jpg
 * How about this one? http://dreadnoughtproject.org/plans/SM_Studienentwurf//Schnelle_GrosseKampfschiffe_4541_100dpi.jpg
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Is there anything left to be addressed? Parsecboy (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That will do it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)