Talk:SMS Prinz Eugen (1912)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: ~Nerdy Science Dude 22:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article shortly. ~Nerdy Science Dude 22:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Looks good.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
More citations in the "Construction" section would be nice.
Fixed. Added some Conway's and Sokol's.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 23:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
No problems here.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Looks neutral to me.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No edit wars detected.
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):
Images look good and illustrate the article.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Looks good, but I have one comment pointed out above. I will pass it once the comment has been responded to. ~Nerdy Science Dude 23:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, so I'll pass it. Congratulations! ~Nerdy Science Dude 23:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]