Talk:Sachsen-class ironclad/GA1
Appearance
(Redirected from Talk:Sachsen class ironclad/GA1)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ed! (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email)
- It is reasonably well written:
- "The German navy regarded the ships as poor sea boats, with severe rolling, and a tendency to ship water." - what does it mean to "ship water?" put a note in or explain please.
- Changed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- "The four ships remained with the fleet until shortly after the turn of the century." - I don't think "turn of the century" is very encyclopedic. Please give a more specific date.
- The specific dates are given in the rest of the paragraph - does "...until the first decade of the 20th century" sound better? Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- What was the significance of this class? Were there other coastal defense-type ships built after or was the idea scrapped? Sounds like this class didn't operate successfuly and a little look at the bigger picture might help.
- The Navy went on a battleship building hiatus until the Siegfried-class coastal defense ships of the late 1880s - added a bit to this effect. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- "The German navy regarded the ships as poor sea boats, with severe rolling, and a tendency to ship water." - what does it mean to "ship water?" put a note in or explain please.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable:
- The infobox needs a cite for fast reference.
- Do you mean you want footnotes in the infobox? Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Last ref in the "Armament and armor" is malformed and showing up in the text.
- Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- The infobox needs a cite for fast reference.
- It is broad in its coverage:
- Good
- It follows the neutral point of view policy:
- Good
- It is stable:
- Good
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
- Good
- Overall:
- A very good article already. On hold pending a few additions. —Ed!(talk) 04:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent, passing the GA now. —Ed!(talk) 22:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- A very good article already. On hold pending a few additions. —Ed!(talk) 04:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)