Talk:French battleship Démocratie
Latest comment: 11 years ago by MathewTownsend in topic GA Review
 | French battleship Démocratie has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
 | French battleship Démocratie is part of the Battleships of France series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 7, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Démocratie was the only ship of her class to have protective bulges fitted underneath her bow anchors? | ||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:French battleship Démocratie/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 15:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, I'll review this shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- reveiw
A very nice article. I made a few minor edits which you're free to revert.[1]
I've only a few comments:
- "She displaced up to 14,489 metric tons (14,260 long tons; 15,971 short tons) at full load. She had a crew of between 739 and 769 officers and enlisted men. She was powered by three vertical triple expansion engines with twenty-two Belleville boilers. " three sentences in a row start with "She".
- "Démocratie 22.7 percent hits," - is there a word left out here?
Otherwise all is fine. will put on hold while you look over my comments.
Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Both should be fixed now, thanks for reviewing the article! Parsecboy (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
- b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:
- a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
- b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
- c. no original research:
- a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
- fair representation without bias:
- fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- no edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- pass!
- Pass or Fail:
Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)