Talk:HMS Bellerophon (1786)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) 23:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Hi there, I am happy to tell you that this article has passed GA without the need for any further improvement. Listed below is information on how the article fared against the Wikipedia:good article criteria, with suggestions for future development. These are not required to achieve GA standard, but they might help in future A-class or FAC review process. I've read Cordingly's book myself although some years ago now and I well know how difficult it is when working with a detailed and complicated topic to ensure that you've achieved the correct balance between detail and accessibility - I think you've done a very good job here.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- Its a minor cosmetic point, but the "First commission" section is very short to have a level 2 heading - with the picture of Pasley there as well it looks a little untidy. Could this be made a subheading of "Construction and commissioning" or perhaps integrated into the section below?
- 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:
Thankyou and congratulations, an excellent addition to Wikipedia:Good Articles. All the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)