Talk:INS Kursura (S20)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: TheQ Editor (talk · contribs) 17:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow, you should thank your signature for this review. I was just skimming through WP:GAN and your signature caught my eye and I decided to review this one. It looks interesting too. This may take a while as it has been a while since I last reviewed due to a wikibreak. Cheers, TheQ Editor (Talk) 17:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The Review
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Notes
[edit]Just saying, here's a good site for reviewing articles. You may find it helpful for reviewing articles. It's an automated tip generator here.TheQ Editor (Talk) 23:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well written
-
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 600 metres, use 600 metres. generated from
Done 
Not done you forgot to add to all of them. TheQ Editor (Talk) 23:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Can you guide me where else? Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle 04:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 600 metres, use 600 metres. generated from
- 533mm. That's the last of them. TheQ Editor (Talk) 14:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Done Ah thanks.. ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- In the year 2010 change to in 2010. Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. Done
- What is FOCINCWEST? You have to explain all abbreviations beforehand. Done
- They were tasked to patrol approaches - doesn't flow Done Tell me if it's good enough now ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- to public - change to "to the public" Done
- In the year 2010 change to in 2010. Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise.
- Referencing
-
- ref 12 is a dead link
- ref 32 is a dead link
- ref 56 is a dead link
- Ref 12 works fine for me...and ref 32 and 56 don't exist! ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. I looked at Checklinks for the wrong page. I was checking two pages at the same time. So much for multi-tasking. The correct ones are 15 and 18.TheQ Editor (Talk) 23:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Done
- Oh, sorry. I looked at Checklinks for the wrong page. I was checking two pages at the same time. So much for multi-tasking. The correct ones are 15 and 18.TheQ Editor (Talk) 23:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ref 12 works fine for me...and ref 32 and 56 don't exist! ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Broadness
- was repaired within months - how long excatly? That we don't know. The author (former rear admiral) doesn't mention the exact time unfortunately.
- shifted to a new patrol location - where? We added all we could from public sources...so if it's not available, I guess they want it to remain confidential! ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Stability
-
- no problems
- Images
-
- no problems