Wikipedia

Talk:USS Wisconsin (BB-9)/GA1

< Talk:USS Wisconsin (BB-9)
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Miyagawa in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 12:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)Reply


Criteria

edit
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

edit
  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
    (b) (MoS) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    No issues.   Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All images are public domain.   Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) No issues with captions.   Pass

Result

edit
Result Notes
  Pass The article meets all the criteria to be marked as a Good Article.

Discussion

edit
  • Description
    • Just for the lay person - does the layout of her guns make her a Dreadnought type or not?
      • Good catch, fixed.
  • Pacific and Asiatic Fleets
    • The two factions in Panana - can anything more be said about this? i.e. who were the factions and is there any other articles you could link to from that so that the reader could get more information?
      • As it turns out, the treaty was to end the Thousand Days' War - the text in DANFS wasn't particularly clear.
  • General
    • Just suddenly realised as I was reading through that British date formats have been used throughout - is this also the same format used by the US Navy? Otherwise as the article is about an American subject, it should really be formatted in the American style.
  • I think that is everything. Miyagawa (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Additional notes

edit
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Wisconsin_(BB-9)/GA1&oldid=1038145277"