Talk:Siegfried-class coastal defense ship/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Thurgate (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
prose: (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

1. naval register on 17 June 1919, days before the Treaty of Versailles. Suggest - Link for naval register.

2. immediately after they were struck. Suggest - immediately after they were struck of the naval register.

3. Suggest you go over the Sub-sections, general characteristics and propulsion and add links for the jargon. Also these sections are missing conversions of meters and tonnage.

4. each entering the dry dock at various times between. Suggest - with each ship under going refits at various times between

5. but draft was slightly decreased. Suggest - but the draft was slightly decreased.

6. Link for helm.

7. The ships did lose significant speed in heavy seas. Suggest - The ships lost significant speed in heavy seas.

8. 3 cyl vertical triple expansion; 5,000 ihp (this is in the infobox). Suggest - 3 cylinder vertical triple expansion; 5,000 shp. With a link for shp.

9. Suggest you add armor to the infobox.

10. After the refit. Which refit is this?

11. Imperial Navy. Needs a link

12. barracks ships. Barracks needs a link

13. that ended the First World War was signed. Suggest - that ended the First World War, was signed.

14. Siegfried was a barracks ships. Suggest - Siegfried was a barracks ship

15. and eventually scrapped in situ. Could you see if you could re-word the last bit, as some people might not understand situ.

16. References section needs to be alphabetical order.

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) 19:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think I've got everything. I wrote this back in June 2009 - it's kinda funny to go back over old articles like this and fix all the things I wasn't doing right. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I thought as much, as it had a few mistakes that you dont make on your newer articles :). Anyway, nice work one again. Passed. Thurgate (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]