Talk:HMS Diana (H49)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Harrison49 (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
~~The article links to a redirect - QF 4.7 inch Gun - which in turn links to a disambiguation page.~~ fixed - Shem (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
The use of prose and the layout is good and consistent.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
The article is factually accurate and references are well used.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Need a reference in the Design and construction section for the final paragraph on costs.
Done.

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:
The article does not appear to be subject to edit warring.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
~~File:HMS Diana Crest.jpg should have a more detailed fair use rationale. The main infobox photograph is within the public domain.~~

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Images are used well within the infobox.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
~~Almost there. With the exception of a citation or two, this is not far off. Harrison49 (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)~~ Very informative. Harrison49 (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use for File:HMS Diana Crest.jpg

It seems to me that the fair use rationale for File:HMS Diana Crest.jpg is entirely sufficient, and suitably detailed; crests and badges are pretty standard fare for this type of fair use, hence the use of {{Non-free symbol}}. Shem (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]