Talk:Nassau-class battleship/GA1

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

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Generally very good, 8/10. Please do not use contractions such as "wasn't".
 * Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * When mentioning Westfalen being torpedoed, please give some more information on the damaged caused, as it is it sounds like she was sunk, and then she appears again in the next sentence without any explanation.
 * I clarified the incident, does that work now? Parsecboy (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Other comments
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
 * "Following the German collapse in November, 1918" - can you be more specific on when: after the armistice? Versailles? the Scapa Flow scuttle?
 * Link to the Finnish Civil War


 * I've clarified the situation as to the fate of the ships at the end of the war, and linked to the Finnish Civil War as you suggested. Parsecboy (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work, happy to pass.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)