Talk:French ironclad Montcalm/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   'The Alma-class ironclads[Note 1] were designed as a improved version of the armored corvette Belliqueuse suitable for foreign deployments.' - 'Improved', surely?

   How about improved versions?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Would suggest adding the sentence about why it may have taken three years to build the ironclad.

   Three years is about average for this period.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Does Rear-Admiral Landorfe have a full name that can be wikilinked?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

2. 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):

3. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I would have passed this if I hadn't been unsure about the 'improvised/improved' sentence, and the need for the explanatory sentence. Once these are done, I think the article can be passed. Skinny87 (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Good catch on the sentence. I'll go back and update all of the other articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No pronlem. Your suggestion on wording is fine and can be added in. I'll pass this now. Skinny87 (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)