Talk:SMS Deutschland (1904)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

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) 22:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "Deutschland went into dock in Kiel' work lasted until 12 March" - I think there is some punctuation missing here, but I'm not sure what it should be.
 * Looks like I hit the apostrophe key when I intended for the semi-colon. Parsecboy (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "result-less" - I'm not sure this is a word, "uneventful"?
 * It is according to dictionary.com. I'll replace it if you prefer, though. Parsecboy (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2010 (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):
 * Mention Deutchland ' s class, operational purpose and immediate obsalesence in the Construction section - at the moment this is only in the lead.
 * I added a main link to the class article and added the details you requested. Parsecboy (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "so-called "five-minute ships"" - why were they so-called?
 * That's explained in the second note. Parsecboy (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2010 (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:
 * Good work, no further changes required. I'm ready to pass this as GA now.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work, no further changes required. I'm ready to pass this as GA now.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)