Talk:SMS Prinz Heinrich/GA1

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

Reviewer: Thurgate (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * prose:  (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * 2) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
1. as opposed Fürst Bismarck. Suggest - as opposed to the Fürst Bismarck 2. including during the Battle of the Gulf of Riga in August 1915. Suggest - and was involved in the Battle of the Gulf of Riga in August 1915 3. hp in the infobox could do with a link. 4. and used in several secondary roles. Suggest - and was used in several secondary roles 5. amidships could do with a link. 6. and a top speed of. Suggest - and had a top speed of 7. with relief effort. Suggest - with the relief effort 8. Miller apparatus. Suggest a link for this 9. Suggest a link for van. 10. von Ingenohl. Is he the ships Capitan?
 * Added "to", though I don't like using "the" with a ship name, but that's just a taste issue. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Added. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good call. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Added. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why I missed so many little things like that - must've been distracted when I wrote the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know that there'll ever be an article for this. I've only seen it referenced in the article in Industrial Magazine (and its probably an informal name for whatever the USN designated it as).
 * Added. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The admiral of the fleet - I've clarified this. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow you to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns. Thurgate (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice work Parsec, once again. Passed. Thurgate (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)