Talk:SMS Kaiser Barbarossa/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments
Looks good so far, some minor points though:
 * There are no citation errors and external links check out (no action required),
 * One dab link (to Schichau) which needs to rectified ; and ✅
 * The prose is a little wooden in places but this won't hold it back in my opinion.

More to follow. Anotherclown (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 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:
 * 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) 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Overall, another good article IMO. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to review the article, Anotherclown. Parsecboy (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Anotherclown (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)