Talk:Cunard Line/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Some comments:

   • The lead is far too short for this article. It must be at least twice the length, perhaps even three times. Remember to summarize the whole article in the lead.
   • A public company means a company that has publicly trades shares (either on or off an exchange). This company is a subsidiary.
   • The sentence "The history of the line is essentially the history of the Atlantic ferry." is very inaccurate and unencylopedic. While it may be partially true, it is a biased claim.
   • Use an endash (–) for ranges, not a hyphen (-).
   • There are strict rules for what should be in italics, see WP:Italics.
   • Why in all of earth is the format £X pounds used? The £ implies pounds, so please remove all the suffixes. Same goes for dollars. Also, please indicate the national denomination for all occurrences of USD (with link), and first use of £, just to be absolutely clear.
   • All units need to be converted—use the {{convert}} template.
   • Would be nice if Blue Riband was explained in the prose.
   • In what way did "four additional mail steamers" prove to be inferior?
   • It is the 1860s, not the 1860's.
   • Dreadnaught links to a disambiguation page.
   • Avoid terms like 'unfortunately'. One persons fortune is another persons misfortune.
   • 'Kvaerner/ASA'? The company was called 'Kværner ASA', where the suffix is the Norwegian equivilent of 'plc'. Therefore, refer to the company as 'Kværner'.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • It is presumed that all prose up until the reference is sourced by that reference; therefore avoid repeating the same ref tag in a row.
   • Ref 25 (onnoheesbeen.com) is dead (404), and incorrectly formatted.
   • None of the online references are correctly formatted. I recommend using {{cite web}}.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • In an article about a company, it is expected to find details about current operations. There is hardly any mention of this at all. Also, increased detail should be given to the current fleet, business matters, strategy etc. Look at the company from a current, business view in such a section.
   • The milesstones section should be removed. It is redundant, as it simply summarizes the history section. Key events should be summarized in prose form in the lead.
   • The commemoration section is very short and very trivial. If kept, it should be incorporated into a different section.

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):

   • File:CunardAd.png has unresolved copyright problems. I have removed the image, do not add it back until the copyright problem has been resolved (which most probably will not be).
   • Try to avoid images in the reference section (it just plain does not look good). There is lots of space in the fleet detail section.
   • The funnel image seems to just be a stray line, with low resolution and bad quality. I would recommend a higher resolution (non-jpg) image, or removeing it.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing the article on hold. The article is within reach of the GA, but the matters taken up must be resolved. Do not hesitate if there are any questions or comments. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Thank you for your help on this project. This is my first time through this process and your suggestions have also been helpful in several other articles being worked on. I think this article is finally ready to be reviewed again. (GRUBBXDN (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC))
    • Some comments:
      • The 'footnotes' parameter in the infobox is for just that, not for images. (fixed)
      • Cannot write 'for 170 years' on Wikipedia. What if the article when unedited for two years, or the text was copied to a third-party page and not updates for five? Just stick to years. (fixed)
      • For references 20 through 32, I presume these are newspaper articles? In which case, use {{cite news}}, and include the full name of the newspaper (The New York Times), as well as the author (journalist who wrote the story). If available, the page number should also be included. The name of the newspaper goes under the 'works' variable (which automatically puts the newspaper name in italics).
    • Once the reference formatting is in order, I will pass the article. Sorry for the delay. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations with a good article! Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)