Talk:German battleship Tirpitz/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
A couple of tags to resolve.
I only saw one - let me know if my change resolved it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Need publisher location for the Norwegian book.
Done: It's Oslo. Manxruler (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Link standard and full load displacement as well as waterline and overall length in the infobox. What electronics did she have when built? What about her armor? Why do the figures for shp differ between the infobox and the main body differ?
Links and armor added, shp in the infobox was for Bismarck, not Tirpitz, radar equipment added. Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate caisson and add the armor to the infobox.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: