Talk:Victoria Louise-class cruiser/GA1

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

Reviewer: Thurgate (talk · contribs) 22:44, 15 May 2012 (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. Any reason for including the ships details (beam, weight etc) in the lead?
 * Eh, I felt like the design section was much longer than usual, so some of it should be represented in the lead.

2. Dab link for Vineta.
 * Fixed

3. head sea. Suggest - wiki link it to the nautical terms page
 * Good idea.

4. heel over. Would it not be keeled over? Or am I being dim
 * Nope, should be [Heeling (sailing) :)

5. after the refit. Suggest - after numerous refits/after refitting or something along those lines as you make it sound like all the ships had the same refit with the current wording
 * How does it read now?

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.
 * Thanks for reviewing the article :) Parsecboy (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Passed. Good job Parsec. Thurgate (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)