Talk:Lion-class battlecruiser/GA1

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

I shall be undertaking the review of this article against the Good Article criteria, per its nomination for Good Article status. ✽ Juniper§ Liege  (TALK)  01:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Pass quick-fail assessment; main review to follow. ✽ Juniper§ Liege  (TALK)  01:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Lead: The lead is a good length and summarises the material of the article. However, I made a number of changes to the prose to improve readibility and textual flow, mostly removing sentence fragments and altering descriptors. There was also a problem with overlinking. The rest of the article did not have the same readibility problems as the lead, but also suffered from excessive and unnecessary linking. A term/name should only be linked once in the article - when the name/term is repeated it should not be linked (for example, the name of certain battles was often linked 2 or 3 times; similarly, some ship names were linked on multiple occasions. I have fixed most of the overlinking in the first half of the article, but the later could also do with some revising as I see terms like "High Seas Fleet" are being linked again for a second or third time. Also, well known geographical terms do not need to be linked (eg: Russia, United Kingdom). ✽ Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  04:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Main review of article

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * Well written. Identified problems addressed.
 * b (MoS):
 * Conforms to manual of style.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * Well referenced.
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * Citations are to third party publications.
 * c (OR):
 * No evidence of OR.
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * Addresses major aspect of article subject matter.
 * b (focused):
 * Remains focused. No digressions.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * No issues concerning POV evident.
 * 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):
 * Images are properly tagged and justified.
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images are accompanied by contextual captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: PASS
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: PASS
 * Pass/Fail: PASS