Talk:French cruiser Pluton/GA1

GA Review

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

I shall be undertaking the review of this article against the Good Article criteria, per its nomination for Good Article status. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 06:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

Article passes quick-fail assessment. Main review to follow. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 06:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Considerations

• Overlinking. This has been the main constant problem in the naval warship articles I have reviewed (of which this is the third). It must be remembered that a term/name should only be linked once in the article. Personally I count links in the infobox as part of this number, however in certain contexts a term linked in the infobox may also be linked in the article's body. But in a small article like this, where the infobox is prominent, it would be best to have the link in either the infobox or the article, but not both. However, be that as it may there still remained a number of names/terms that were repeatedly linked - I have removed those as necessary. Additionally, and I am not sure if I spotted this in the other articles reviewed (or if it was even evident there) but I do not think terms such as "mph" or "kp/h" should be linked - as these are part of formulas I have left them but would urge them to be unlinked. Having said that, terms like "kPa" pr "psi" should be linked, the difference being they are not widely used by the public.

• Otherwise the article keeps to the good standard that can be found in the naval warships pages. The prose and text are well written. My only criticism is the length of the lead, which could possibly be expanded. However, it does succinctly summarise the article's content, and as the article is comparatively short the lead's length does not prevent the article from meeting GA standards. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 06:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Main assessment

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • Well written.

   b (MoS):

   • Conforms to manual of style. Unnecessary linking corrected

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Well referenced.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Citations are to third party publications.

   c (OR):

   • No evidence of OR.

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • Addresses major aspect of article subject matter.

   b (focused):

   • Remains focused. No digressions.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   • No issues concerning POV evident.

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):

   • Images are properly tagged and justified.

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Images are accompanied by contextual captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: PASS