Talk:Kitsap Fast Ferries/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 04:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Glad to pick it up for a review!

• Catamaran is a duplink, so that has to be removed.
  • It's rather far from the first link and in an entirely new section about the vessels. I think it's worth keeping.
• "in the U.S. state of Washington" Do we need to mention "in the U.S. state of"?
  • Yes, since Washington is often confused with the national capital of Washington, D.C.
• "and early 20th" perhaps add a "the" in the middle?
  • The "the" before "late 19th century" carries over.
• Link Seattle, Bremerton, Southworth, and Vashon in body.
  • Done.
• Do we know whom the 400 passengerfeery was leased?
  • The company isn't notable, so I added a generic description.
• Link Kingston in body.
  • Done.
• Also explain foil-assisted in brackets.
  • It is explained in the next sentence.
• There should be a hyphen in "low wake" in the Vessels section? The lead has it.
  • Only in the second instance.
• Link King County.
  • Already linked (as King County Dept. of Transportation).

@Adityavagarwal: Ready for a check. SounderBruce 05:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

[[user:SounderBruce|SounderBruce}} Looks yet another interesting article. Goodto go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

---

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.