Talk:SMS Bayern/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.

In summary, I think this is a very nice article and is very close to GA standard. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "Along with several 9 light cruisers" - an extra word?
 * Take care with links - almost all proper nouns should be linked, as should technical terms or terms that might be unfamiliar to readers.
 * I fixed the "several 9" thing (it's easy to made stupid mistakes like that when you rewrite something several 9 times, isn't it?). I also added some links to the article, do you think that's sufficient? Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 12 August 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):
 * The Battle of Jutland in relation to Bayern ' s completion is mentioned in the lead but not in the main body of the text.
 * Why (how) did a German ship built during World War I use British engines?
 * Briefly summarise the results of Operation Albion after Bayern was forced to retire.
 * "The ship's bell was delivered to the German Federal Navy" - do you know when, even approximately?
 * I added a short line about her commissioning date being too late for Jutland, a note explaining that Parsons had a branch in Germany, and a short paragraph detailing major actions during the rest of Albion. As to the bell, I don't know when it was returned (Groner's doesn't give a date), but I'd wager it was on 30 August 1965. The British returned the bells from SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911) and SMS Derfflinger that day (though SMS Hindenburg's bell was returned on 28 May 1959. It's not mentioned in any other book I have. Parsecboy (talk) 12:01, 12 August 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:


 * Excellent work, and very fast too, well done. GA passed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)