Talk:Danton-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 13:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 13:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

1: 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:

WP:LEAD:

Check for WP:LEAD: Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  Done Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  Done Check for Introductory text:  Done Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO):  Done Major Point 1: Background and description "" (not in the lead, cross-checked with the other FAs, OK) Major Point 2: General description "" (summarised well in the infobox, cross-checked with the other FAs) Major Point 3: Construction and careers The lead consists of predominantly this point (summarised well in the lead) Check for Relative emphasis:  Done Major Point 1: Background and description "" (not in the lead, cross-checked with the other FAs, OK) Major Point 2: General description "" (in the infobox, cross-checked with the other FAs) Major Point 3: Construction and careers The lead consists of predominantly this point (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body) Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN):  Done Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE):  Done The Danton-class battleship was a class of six pre-dreadnought battleships built for the French Navy (Marine Nationale) before World War I. Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE):  Done Check for Proper names and titles:  Done Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None Check for Pronunciation: None Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK):  Done Check for Biographies: NA Check for Organisms: NA Check for Biographies of living persons: NA Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  Done Check for Non-English titles: Check for Usage in first sentence: Check for Separate section usage: Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  Done Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER): None

WP:LAYOUT:

Done Check for WP:LAYOUT:  Done Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  Done Check for Headings and sections:  Done Check for Section templates and summary style:  Done Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS):  Done Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  Done Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER):  Done Check for Works or publications:  Done Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO):  Done Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR):  Done Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER):  Done Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL):  Done Check for Links to sister projects:  Done Check for Navigation templates:  Done Check for Formatting:  Done Check for Images (WP:LAYIM):  Done Check for Links:  Done Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE):  Done

WP:WTW:

Done Check for WP:WTW:  Done Check for Words that may introduce bias:  Done Check for Puffery (WP:PEA):  Done Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL):  Done Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL):  Done Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED):  Done Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED):  Done Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY):  Done Check for Expressions that lack precision:  Done Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM):  Done Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM):  Done Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME):  Done Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  Done Check for WP:MOSFICT:  Done Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  Done Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI):  Done Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT):  Done

WP:EMBED:
Done Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE): Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research

• a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
• b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google. Cross-checked with other FAs)

WP:RS:

Done Check for WP:RS:  Done Cross-checked with other FAs: HMS Lion (1910), HMAS Australia (1911), Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship, Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga, Russian battleship Slava, Courageous class battlecruiser, SMS Goeben, HMS Indefatigable (1909)‎, Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō, USS New Ironsides, HMS Hood (51), HMS Princess Royal (1911), HMS Eagle (1918), HMS Courageous (50), USS Arizona (BB-39), HMS New Zealand (1911), Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi, HMS Queen Mary, HMS Vanguard (23), Courageous class aircraft carrier, HMS Agincourt, HMS Hermes (95), HMS Furious (47)‎, USS Lexington (CV-2), HMS Argus (I49), HMS Tiger (1913), Russian battleship Rostislav, Fusō-class battleship, Japanese battleship Fusō, Japanese battleship Yamashiro, USS Saratoga (CV-3), Conte di Cavour-class battleship, Japanese battleship Musashi, HMS Warrior (1860), Tosa-class battleship, Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū, Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano, Japanese battleship Mutsu, Japanese battleship Asahi, Japanese aircraft carrier Ryūjō, Russian battleship Retvizan Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING): (contentious)  Done Is it contentious?: Yes Does the ref indeed support the material?: Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Who is the author?: Does the author have a Wikipedia article?: What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?: What else has the author published?: Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?: Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  Done Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

WP:MINREF:
Done Check for inline citations WP:MINREF:  Done Check for Direct quotations:  Done Check for Likely to be challenged:  Done Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP): NA

• c. No original research:  Done

WP:NOR:
Done Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  Done Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  Done Check for original images (WP:OI):  Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done Cross-checked with other FAs: HMS Lion (1910), HMAS Australia (1911), Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship, Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga, Russian battleship Slava, Courageous class battlecruiser, SMS Goeben, HMS Indefatigable (1909)‎, Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō, USS New Ironsides, HMS Hood (51), HMS Princess Royal (1911), HMS Eagle (1918), HMS Courageous (50), USS Arizona (BB-39), HMS New Zealand (1911), Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi, HMS Queen Mary, HMS Vanguard (23), Courageous class aircraft carrier, HMS Agincourt, HMS Hermes (95), HMS Furious (47)‎, USS Lexington (CV-2), HMS Argus (I49), HMS Tiger (1913), Russian battleship Rostislav, Fusō-class battleship, Japanese battleship Fusō, Japanese battleship Yamashiro, USS Saratoga (CV-3), Conte di Cavour-class battleship, Japanese battleship Musashi, HMS Warrior (1860), Tosa-class battleship, Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū, Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano, Japanese battleship Mutsu, Japanese battleship Asahi, Japanese aircraft carrier Ryūjō, Russian battleship Retvizan Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources: Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS: Check for Out of scope: Check for The range of material that belongs in the article: Check for All material that is notable is covered: Check for All material that is referenced is covered: Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered: Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge: Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

b. Focused:
Done Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH): Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV:

Done 4. Fair representation without bias:  Done Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  Done Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  Done Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  Done Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  Done Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  Done Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  Done Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  Done Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  Done Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  Done Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI): None Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images  Done (PD)

Images:

Done 6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  Done Check for copyright status:  Done Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  Done Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  Done 6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  Done Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  Done Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  Done

I'm glad to see your work here. As per the above checklist there are no issues with the article and it’s a GA.

Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 02:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)