Talk:Bussard-class cruiser/GA1
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Dana boomer in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 19:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I'll take this article for review, and should have my full comments up by tomorrow. Dana boomer (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- References, should the Nunez ref "The Spanish-American war" be "The Spanish-American War"?
- Yup - probably forgot to fix it when I copied it from google books.
- Lead, "Bussard and Falke were broken up for in 1912," - there's either an extra word or a word missing here.
- Fixed.
- Lead, "but the remaining four ships remained in service" - remaining...remained (rather repetitive).
- Also fixed
- General characteristics, "A layer of Muntz metal sheathing" Is Muntz a type of metal, or a brand, or something else? Anything we could link to?
- Yeah, I don't know why I forgot the link to Muntz metal
- Service history, "never returned for an major dockyard work." Extra word?
- Probably started writing "returned for an overhaul" and then switched halfway through ;)
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section):
- 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 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- A few minor prose issues, nothing major; placing the article on hold until these can be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for review the article and spotting all those silly mistakes :) Should all be fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK, everything looks good, so passing to GA. Dana boomer (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
