Talk:SS Batavier V (1902)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSS Batavier V (1902) has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 20, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 26, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Batavier II and Batavier V, of the Dutch Batavier Line, were captured, released, and later sunk by four different submarines?

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:SS Batavier V (1902)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Below is the review of my article:

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Lead says upto 300 passengers could be carried. The main text raises this number to 428. Please remove the discrepancy. Same issue as in SS Batavier II (1897).
    • I change the lead to say that the ship could carry about 430 passengers. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have put the exact number in the lead. I think it is better without taking any toll on lead. - DSachan (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Thanks - DSachan (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]