Talk:Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 10:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- /DeltaQuad.alt|Notify Me\ 15:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC) (New Signature note)[reply]

Criterion

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Reviewing...

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

To Work On list (specifics)

6B: File:Osprey at Pensacola.jpg Foreign Language Content on this image, on commons.

Done

6B: File:US Navy 091019-N-2147L-001 Aviation Boatswains Mate Handler 2nd class Dustin Shipman assigned to the amphibious transport dock ship Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) New York (LPD 21), directs an MV-22 Osprey.jpg needs renaming on the commons.

Done

6B: The image with the caption "United States Marines MV-22B" needs to be changed to an appropriate caption.

Done

Comments

Please do not change the status of the criterion, the reviewer will change that their selfs.

The first and third image items have been fixed or addressed. For the second item, the file name is long, but why is that really relevant here? -Fnlayson (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Criterion #7 says they have to be compliant with the Image use policy. The specific IUP that I am refering to is naming of images. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 16:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I found a template for renaming the file on Commons... -Fnlayson (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But nobody on Commons has renamed it yet.. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done I contacted a commons admin. Will comment more soon. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal, thanks. The image with the long name has been renamed on Commons and in this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any outstanding items now? I've done about all the improvements I can think of... -Fnlayson (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, getting on it and should be done soon. -- /DeltaQuad.alt|Notify Me\ 15:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no outstanding issues. This review needs to be completed. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restarting review

I'm taking over this review, as it has stalled. At this moment I've not decided whether to use the previous review or to start from scratch. I will start by reading the article through a couple of times and then I'll make a decision - this might take most of the weekend, as I have two other review underway as well. When I've decided I will add my comments below. Pyrotec (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this over, my normal Wikipedia duties/IRL limited this to jumps of a few min and I just didn't feel like it would be a fair review. I should have posted it here, but I was not able to finish the review as time was not availible to me, but it is on my Talkpage & the Nom's. Anyway, thanks for the takeover. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 00:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Pyrotec (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I've had a quick read through, but I've not read it all nor checked any of the references. On that basis it looks quite reasonable. I will now review the article in more depth. At this point I'm only looking for "problems", so if I find any that I can't fix myself I'll add them here. This will take a couple of so days, as I've go other reviews to deal with as well. Pyrotec (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Development -

This section appears to be OK. Pyrotec (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Design -

OK. Pyrotec (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A comprehensive, well-referenced, well-illustrated article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

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:
Well illustrated.

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

I'm awarding this article GA-status. It is well deserved. Pyrotec (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing it! -Fnlayson (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]