Talk:Rudyard Kipling (ship)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rudyard Kipling (ship)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ~NerdyScienceDude 00:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article shortly. ~NerdyScienceDude 00:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Any external links?.

   There are a few sites that I'll add in as external links in a bit. Thanks :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

   I've added two so far....--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

   The section heading for "External Links" needs the L decapitalized per WP:MOSHEAD. ~NerdyScienceDude 12:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

   Fixed.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 21:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   More citations could be used overall. For example, there are only two citations in the first section, and they are in the end.

   Technically everything is cited by those sources at the end of the paragraph. I'll try to see if I can add a few more in later today :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Stays on topic.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Looks pretty neutral to me.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit warring found.

6. 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):

   Infobox image looks good.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   There are a few things that need to be done before this article is passed, but it should be pretty easy. ~NerdyScienceDude 02:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting

I saw in the GAN review that there's a possible MoS problem. The only thing I can find is that the lead should be shorter per WP:LEAD, and I made the edit. Feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually missed that. Thanks Dank :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 21:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that that has been fixed, I can pass this. Congratulations! ~NerdyScienceDude 00:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)