Talk:PNS Ghazi/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) 05:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this is a quick fail, there are several sections unreferenced, and all of the details in the General characteristics section of the info box need to be in the article and cited. Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite in WP:MOS whether it is required for the details to be in listed in a section? This somewhat states that common sections of a particular format are not a GA criteria. I'll see what I can find about the missing references from the sections. The references for characteristics are there in the article and the sister article, USS Diablo (SS-479), and could have been cited easily. Aren't you going a little fast? --lTopGunl (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should look like the Good Article German Type IXA submarine design section. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a requirement of it being necessary (cite one) or just an example? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the GA criteria

2 Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged,

3 Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is to the point, not going into unnecessary details and covers main topics. The citations are an issue, but as I said, they can be dealt with. You didn't cite the requirement of infobox data being in a section as well. Is that a requirement? --lTopGunl (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would need to be written, not just a list of numbers etc. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest you get a peer review, before submitting articles, to iron out any problems.Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be a good idea. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]