Talk:Lion-class battlecruiser/GA1

GA Review

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

I shall be undertaking the review of this article against the Good Article criteria, per its nomination for Good Article status. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 01:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

Pass quick-fail assessment; main review to follow. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 01:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Lead: The lead is a good length and summarises the material of the article. However, I made a number of changes to the prose to improve readibility and textual flow, mostly removing sentence fragments and altering descriptors. There was also a problem with overlinking. The rest of the article did not have the same readibility problems as the lead, but also suffered from excessive and unnecessary linking. A term/name should only be linked once in the article - when the name/term is repeated it should not be linked (for example, the name of certain battles was often linked 2 or 3 times; similarly, some ship names were linked on multiple occasions. I have fixed most of the overlinking in the first half of the article, but the later could also do with some revising as I see terms like "High Seas Fleet" are being linked again for a second or third time. Also, well known geographical terms do not need to be linked (eg: Russia, United Kingdom). ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 04:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Main review of article

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • Well written. Identified problems addressed.

   b (MoS):

   • Conforms to manual of style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Well referenced.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Citations are to third party publications.

   c (OR):

   • No evidence of OR.

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • Addresses major aspect of article subject matter.

   b (focused):

   • Remains focused. No digressions.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   • No issues concerning POV evident.

5. It is stable:

   • No edit wars etc.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • Images are properly tagged and justified.

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Images are accompanied by contextual captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: PASS