Talk:German aircraft carrier I (1915)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

A very excellent article on a remarkably obscure subject. Overall it's almost ready to go as-is, but there's one or two little details that needs a bit of clarification before I can pass it.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Nicely written, concise, and easy to understand, without any significant typos or grammar issues that I can spot. My only quibble is that citation #1 might work better as a footnote using the #tag:ref coding? I also tweaked the references section to what I think is a better-appearing format, but of course feel free to revert if you don't think it should be thar way.

   Thanks for the compliments :) I had thought the same thing about the note on the name, and have changed it to a separate footnote. Parsecboy (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Not a smidgen of OR that I can see, and all the sources are A+ or A++ reliability in my opinion, so no issues there either. My only concern is that the statement in the lede about "a proposed moratorium on new ships at the end of the war" isn't clearly referenced in the body of the article, which says it was the need for supplies for the construction of U-boats that scuttled the project - was this a moratorium in favour of U-boat construction, then?

   I've clarified this now - but yes, work on surface ships was stopped to continue building U-boats. Parsecboy (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers the subject in reasonable detail with regards to its obscurity, and doesn't "thread drift" into asides or tangents. Nicely concise.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No POV poroblems whatsoever.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Freshly expanded, but appears to be stable

6. 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):

   Image is fair-use, appropriate, and appropriately licensed. Captioned appropriately for an infobox lead image as well.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Clearing up those two minor issues I've noted above is the only thing standing between this article and Good Article-hood, and that shouldn't be a problem, I expect. Very nice work on an enjoyable and educational subject. Keep up the good work! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks again for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

   Goodness, that was fast work! No quibbles remain, and so this one passes to join the ranks of MILHIST (and SHIPS!) Good Articles. Well done, and keep the fun-to-read articles coming. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)