Talk:SMS Hansa (1898)/GA1
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Thurgate in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Thurgate (talk · contribs) 22:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- prose: (MoS):
- prose: (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
-
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments
edit1. Fürst Bismarck cleared for action. Suggest - I may be being dim here but did the ships have to use force to stop the Russian ships from leaving?
- No, but sending the ships to battle stations was intended to send a message, which was received loud and clear on the Russian ships. Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
2. In the references I'm guessing von Mullenheim-Rechberg is supposed to be spelt using a small v?
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) 22:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)