Talk:Prinz Adalbert-class cruiser/GA1

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

Reviewer: Thurgate (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * prose:  (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * 2) 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
1. Prinz Adalbert class was a type of armored cruiser built for the Imperial German Navy in the early 1900s. Suggest - A comma after cruiser 2. Their armor belts were the same thickness but were more extensive. Suggest - A comma after thickness 3. The ships were responsive to commands from the helm. They lost up to 60 percent speed with the rudder hard over. Do you mean - While the ships were responsive to commands from the helm 4. which rendered them exceedingly wet even in a slight swell. Suggest - A comma after wet 5. These guns were provided with a total of 1,400 shells, for 140 per gun. Suggest - or 140 per gun 6. and could engage targets out to 9,090 m (29,820 ft). Suggest - allowing a maximum range of 9,090 m (29,820 ft).
 * I don't think a comma is needed here - I'll ask User:Dank, who has pretty extensive knowledge as a copy-editor, to take a look though. Parsecboy (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Same as above. Parsecboy (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they're unrelated. Parsecboy (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Same as above. Parsecboy (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed. Parsecboy (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was trying to avoid repetition of the "maximum range of ____" format. If you have an alternative that still offers variety, I'm open to suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, to be honest its fine like it is. I just thought articles had to remain consistent throughout. Thurgate (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow you to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns. Thurgate (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. Passed Thurgate (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)