Talk:N3-class battleship/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 11:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Progression
[edit]- Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
- Version of the article when review was closed: [2]
Technical review
[edit]- Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
- Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action required).
- Linkrot: External links all check out [4] (no action required).
- Alt text: images all have alt text [5] (no action required).
- Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks using Google searches reveal no issues (no action required).
Criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- "the Admiralty initially planned to built..." → "the Admiralty initially planned to build..."
- "and armed with eight or nine, in four twin or three triple..." eight or nine what?
- "The only limitations of the design were the ability...", ability or inability?
- "and main armoured deck was 8 inches..." perhaps "while the main armoured deck was 8 inches..." Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Good catches all.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- All major points cited using WP:RS
- No issues with WP:OR as far as I can see.
- Minor issues with citation format:
- Note 14: "Part 1, pp. 6–7" should this be "Campbell, Part 1, pp. 6–7"?
- Notes 17, 19, 20 and 21: Inconsistent presentation of the "Navweaps.com" refs: is some places you write "Navweaps.com" and in others "navweaps.com". Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Given the ships were cancelled before they were built the level of coverage seems sufficient to me. Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- No issues with POV as far as I can tell. Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No issues here. Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
- One image is PD and the other has a fair use rationale. Both seem suitable for the article. Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- Just a couple of minor issues with prose and citations, otherwise this looks like it meets all the GA criteria to me. Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- Too easy. Changes look good, passing review now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)