Talk:USS Concord (PG-3)/GA1

GA Review

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

Below is my review of the article:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   1. Lead: I would personally keep the lead maximum of 3 paragraphs.

   • I shortened it to three. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

   2. Discrepancy in date of laying down: Lead and text say it to be March 1888; the infobox says it is May 1888.

   3. Discrepancy in date of launch: lead says, March 1890; the main text says March 1889.

   • The May 1888 and March 1890 dates were the correct ones; I've corrected the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Rest everything looks fine. There were a few 'on's missing before the dates. I inserted them. Thanks - DSachan (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)