Jump to content

Talk:Admiral Ackbar/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 09:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this article. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Shouldn't "Los Angeles Times Syndicate" be in italics? Just asking and do state with reason.
    • The reason I didn't italicize was because this is a news syndication service, as opposed to a publication. The latter would certainly be italicized but I didn't think that a service necessarily would be. However, I see on the Los Angeles Times Syndicate page that it is italicized there, so I've gone ahead and italicized it here as well. — Hunter Kahn 15:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A wikilink for Daluuj would be good (If it is listed in the list of Star Wars planets).
  • "a moon-sized superweapon Tarkin is developing" — Shouldn't it be "a moon-sized superweapon Tarkin was developing at the time" since Ackbar had already done it prior to his film debut? Just asking and do state the reason.
  • "an autocratic military dictatorship that formed in place of the original Empire" — Shouldn't it be "an autocratic military dictatorship that was formed from the remnants the original Empire" as the First Order is a derivative of the Galactic Empire?

More tomorrow. Looking good so far, Hunter Kahn.

I didn't find anything much more that needed to be done as far as the prose is concerned. All aspects are quite well analysed. Good job, Hunter Kahn. Now on to the source review.
Sources

That's about it from me. Resolve the remaining comments and the article is promoted.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
    Pass or Fail:

Thank you for addressing the above comments, Hunter Kahn. Congratulations, the article has passed.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]