Talk:USS West Ekonk/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- In the Design and construction section, you say "but the cost of extras during her construction added $35,268" What were these extras?
- 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:
I had one comment in the prose section, but it isn't anything that will hold up the GA, so I am promoting this article to GA status. Nice work on another article! Dana boomer (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)