Talk:SMS Schlesien/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk) 22:29, 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):
 * "result-less" - I'm not sure this is a word - "uneventful" perhaps?
 * It is according to dictionary.com. I'll replace it if you prefer, though. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "The ship was again given secondary duties." - can you connect this sentence to a timeframe as on its own it doesn't give any useful information.
 * Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 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 briefly Schlesien ' s class, operational purpose and immediate obsalesence in the Construction section.
 * Where was the ship between 1908 and 1914?
 * "Schlesien was converted into a training ship" - how?
 * I've added all of these, let me know if they're alright. Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting - I'd assumed the conversion to a training ship would have entailed removal of most of the aramaments, but it seems that a training ship was also an almost fully operational warship.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:43, 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:
 * Ready to pass this now.
 * Ready to pass this now.