Talk:SNCASO SO.8000 Narval/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 14:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Some copyedits made

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   https://oldmachinepress.com/ is a blog, what makes you think that it meets WP:SPS requirements? (The other sources look OK)
   Earwig check is clean

   Scroll to the bottom of the page; the blogger's published three books on engines and aircraft.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Seems to cover all the aspects that I would expect for an airplane article

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   The one image has an appropriate fair use rationale.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I don't agree that the Similar to list needs to be cited, but I've rendered it invisible until we get a better consensus about that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)