Talk:Design B-65 cruiser/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Left several notes inline with the  feature; could you please check those out? NW (Talk) 03:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your copyedits within the article, and they seem fine.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
If I am correct, File:Design B-65.jpg is replacable with a free image, but precedent would have us tag it with {{Rk}} instead? NW (Talk) 03:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No; as the ships were never built, any drawing made by someone intending to release it under a free license would be creating a derivative work of line drawings etc. in books. See the lead image in Design 1047 battlecruiser for a similar situation. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image was just deleted under the F7 criteria; could you go check that out? NW (Talk) 15:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have asked, am very confused as to why it was deleted... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new image seems appropriate. NW (Talk) 01:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
NW (Talk) 03:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passed! Good work, Ed. NW (Talk) 01:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]