Talk:Route Trident/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I've had a quick read through and this article appears to have most, if not all, the necessary requirements of WP:WIAGA; so I anticipate that it could gain GA-status this time round.

I've seen several sentences that I don't like, those having multiple "and"s for instance. I will probably clean those up as I carry out the in depth review. At this point I will be mostly highlighting problems if any (excluding "and"s that I fix myself), so if I don't comment on a particular section/subsection that tends to mean that its OK. I will also be reviewing the WP:Lead last. Pyrotec (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extension -

I missed this point, but it was kindly drawn to my attention by Malleus Fatuorum. Ref 14 states: ..."which resulted in the project being delayed from its original finish date of July to October 2010", since it is now December 2010 a status update is to be expected, i.e. is either open or further delayed. Pyrotec (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall comments

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
I don't like "and .... and ... and". I've cleaned up some of these sentences up, but more work on the prose would be beneficial.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

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:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'll be awarding this article GA-status once minor corrective action has been carried out. It's informative and well referenced, but the grammar needed improving: Malleus Fatuorum has been working diligently on this. Pyrotec (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added as much current info as I can find (The MoD doesn't seem to be releasing much at the moment). I will try to go through for grammar etc. when I get chance (probably next week). Thanks for bearing with me and also to Malleus for his extensive copyediting - Dumelow (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. From your note, I was not expecting you for another week. I'm now awarding the article GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't expecting to be free, but I managed to get some weather-related time off! Thanks for the GA - Dumelow (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]