Talk:USS Concord (PG-3)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Below is my review of the article:
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- 1. Lead: I would personally keep the lead maximum of 3 paragraphs.
- I shortened it to three. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- 2. Discrepancy in date of laying down: Lead and text say it to be March 1888; the infobox says it is May 1888.
- 3. Discrepancy in date of launch: lead says, March 1890; the main text says March 1889.
- The May 1888 and March 1890 dates were the correct ones; I've corrected the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- 1. Lead: I would personally keep the lead maximum of 3 paragraphs.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- 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, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Rest everything looks fine. There were a few 'on's missing before the dates. I inserted them. Thanks - DSachan (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)