Talk:SNCASO SO.8000 Narval/GA1

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Sturmvogel 66 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 14:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    Some copyedits made
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
    https://oldmachinepress.com/ is a blog, what makes you think that it meets WP:SPS requirements? (The other sources look OK)
    Earwig check is clean
    Scroll to the bottom of the page; the blogger's published three books on engines and aircraft.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    Seems to cover all the aspects that I would expect for an airplane article
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. 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):  
    The one image has an appropriate fair use rationale.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

I don't agree that the Similar to list needs to be cited, but I've rendered it invisible until we get a better consensus about that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply