Talk:SMS Brummer/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 16:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Isn't this a bit redundant given the previous sentence? The Germans quickly sank the two escorting destroyers
 * Certainly is. Parsecboy (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 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:
 * Need to add shp to description.
 * Added. Parsecboy (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2011 (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:
 * No picture is available?
 * Fair use on File:SMS Brummer.jpg is probably fine. Parsecboy (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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:
 * No picture is available?
 * Fair use on File:SMS Brummer.jpg is probably fine. Parsecboy (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: