Talk:Bravo November/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Harrison49 (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The article is well written~~, although the lead section could do with being expanded slightly so as to summarise some more of the article. I recommend a copyedit just to have a fresh pair of eyes taking a look at the wording.~~
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References are used sufficiently and back up key facts.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
~~If some additional information on the construction is available, this would help to bulk out the 'Construction and callsign' section somewhat.~~ The article covers the subject well.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The subject is covered neutrally.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
The article has not changed radically over the past couple of weeks.
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):
The sole image in the article is freely licensed and includes a suitably concise caption.
Overall: The article accurately covers the history of the aircraft and is well written. I am placing this review on hold until the additions are made. As this is my first Good Article review, I will be seeking a second opinion to check I'm doing things properly. Harrison49 (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Just to make sure the article is the best it can be, I would recommend a copyedit by the Guild of Copy Editors. I know from personal experience they do a fantastic job. Harrison49 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pass/Fail: Passed - Well done! Harrison49 (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]