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

Hi there, I am happy to tell you that this article has passed GA without the need for any further improvement. Listed below is information on how the article fared against the Wikipedia:good article criteria, with suggestions for future development. These are not required to achieve GA standard, but they might help in future A-class or FAC review process. On a more personal note, several years ago I did some research into the technical specifications of warships from this period, and found reliable sources hard to come by. It is very enjoyable to see that you have done much better than I managed and to learn new things that before I had only seen hints of.

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b ( MoS):

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

I have one minor suggestion here, which is that you give a small sentence explaining more clearly how the construction of HMS Dreadnought made the Brandenburg class obsolete.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 19:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Thankyou and congratulations, an excellent addition to Wikipedia:Good Articles. All the best.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 19:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for reviewing the article Jackyd :) Parsecboy ( talk) 19:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC) reply