Talk:Brazilian cruiser Bahia/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
The line The small fleet sailed on 31 July for the British colony of Sierra Leone, utilizing almost nothing that was Brazilian aside from the ships themselves and the men crewing them. could be worded better. I'm assuming it means their provisions were supplied by other countries, but it's pretty vague right now.In the "Modernization" section, you should probably have a note explaining the discrepancy in the years she was modernized.Is this the Madsen machine gun we're talking about?She traveled 101,971 mi (164,106 km) in 357.5 days strikes me as odd; why not just round it up to 358 days?
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- 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):
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
Everything looks pretty solid, just the few minor things I pointed out above. This will also serve as my A-class review for MILHIST; once everything is kosher here, I'll support the article over there. Nice work Ed! Parsecboy (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- All done, though you may want to check my wording on your first point; I'm not happy with the wording (I wasn't before either, but I can't find a better way to present the information). —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- The wording looks better, but I don't think it's 100% quite yet. I might see if I can smooth it out a bit. Also, I think you missed the line about the year discrepancy for modernization. Parsecboy (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Whoops, added a note now. :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Alrighty, everything looks good now. I'll pass it for GA. Parsecboy (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Whoops, added a note now. :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- The wording looks better, but I don't think it's 100% quite yet. I might see if I can smooth it out a bit. Also, I think you missed the line about the year discrepancy for modernization. Parsecboy (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)