Talk:SMS Habsburg/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * I'll try and fix the run-ons in each of them, and will submit it to the Guild of copyeditors (I can't spell properly that much)
 * Done.
 * Done.


 * B. MoS compliance:
 * Think it's all done. Buggie111 (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Think it's all done. Buggie111 (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * Meaning a ref is not cited, or a statement is not cited?
 * I've fixed that. It was Gardiner and Gray (1984), p. 330 and did exist in an earlier version of the article. I must have removed it when I expanded this article. Sorry about that :)-- White Shadows you're breaking up 20:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fixed that. It was Gardiner and Gray (1984), p. 330 and did exist in an earlier version of the article. I must have removed it when I expanded this article. Sorry about that :)-- White Shadows you're breaking up 20:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * I don't have Brassesy's and it's not covered in Jane's. I'll ask at WT:OMT if anyone can do so.
 * Just to note, there are several editions of Brasseys available for viewing on Google Books. Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just a suggestion to try and fill out the ship's history. It won't affect this GAR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This ship (along with the others in her class) litterally did nothing until WWI exept rot away in port and go out on one menuver and patrol. There was'nt much to say about her (or the others) I can try to find something though if you need me to...-- White Shadows you're breaking up 20:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * B. Focused:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * ✅ I've completed a copyedit of this article as requested by Buggie111. I fixed a few minor typos and rearranged some sentences for better flow. I don't know a lot about boats/ships, but it reads OK. NielsenGW (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ All refs are in place and fixed up as well.-- White Shadows you're breaking up 10:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've marked one awkward spot where the propeller shafts should be broken out from the sentence discussing the engines. Still need the magazine article titles, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)