Talk:Scharnhorst-class battleship/GA1
GA Review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This is a nice article.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- you have some prose issues, most of which I fixed (I hope).
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- The sources seem to cover the controversial material in section 1, so I removed someone's citation template.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- 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):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- nice job, per usual
- Pass/Fail:
Classification section
As predicted this didn't go away. We seem to have a three way edit war going on over the wording of the classification paragraph. I think there a few contentious bits (currently) at the start and end of the second paragraph (which is currently hidden).
The first bit suggests the RN "initially" classified them as battlecruisers and then changed its mind. Although I've added references, I don't think they really support the assertion that there was a change (they simply indicate that the British classified them as battlecruisers). It would be helpful if someone could reproduce the relevant section of the Staff History source to see if it really supports the assertion (Google books does not provide a full preview). If not then we should remove it.
The second bit... I don't actually see a problem in citing an entire book if the consistent usage throughout that book is the point of the argument; the assertion itself (i.e. that there is mixed usage) is not contentious surely?
The third bit (currently hidden) describing why different sources use different classifications seems to be useful. Am I right in thinking, Parsecboy, that you object to it because you believe that a single reference (of two) is not sufficient to support that block of text? Or that it was placed to support that block of text? Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Originally intended armament?
In the section titled "Gneisenau's reconstruction", there is the following statement: "It was estimated that it would take two years to make the ship ready for service.[60] Since this was such a long period, it was determined that it would be more efficient if during the repair work, the ship was reconstructed to mount the six 38 cm (15 in) guns that had been originally intended." I have no problem with this information per se, as I had previously read it in Breyer. However, there is no mention earlier in the article that 38cm guns were originally intended for this class. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the section on the ships' development? Jonyungk (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)