Talk:Milwaukee-class monitor/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 22:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

GAN Quicksheet 1.23 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments: Considering the pedigree of the nominator, this should be an easy enough pass. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright: Needs work  Done The one thing that I think needs to be changed is that there needs to be some sort of sentence indicating when the Kickapoo and Milwaukee came onto the scene. As written currently, you're talking about two ships being commissioned and then all of a sudden there are four being given orders. What happened to the commissioning of the other two?

Added.

b. MoS compliance: Acceptable

2. Accurate and verifiable: Obviously, I'm going to have to take everything on good faith, as I don't have access to any of the sources you're using. That being said, your reputation is good, and having read enough academic writing for a lifetime, I can say it certainly doesn't read as if it were ripped from something. So... Section acceptable

a. provides references: Acceptable

b. proper citation use: Acceptable

c. no original research: Acceptable

3. Broad in coverage: Section acceptable

a. covers main aspects: Acceptable

b. focused/on topic: Acceptable

4. Neutral: Section acceptable

5. Stable: Section acceptable

6. Image use:

a. license/tagging correct: Needs work The "Date" field in the information template refers to the date of the work, not the date of upload. I put 1866 in for the first, based on the field above it, but please make sure that this is accurate. I didn't change the second item. That's something you need to do. It's okay to ballpark it, even to the decade/century, if that's completely unknown.

Both fixed.

b. relevant/properly captioned: Section acceptable

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:

a. images that should have alt texts have them: Needs work Obviously this isn't required for this to pass inspection, but it's nice for usability reasons.

b. general catch all and aesthetics: Section acceptable

Comments after the initial review:

A couple of minor things. This is very close, it just needs another five minutes of polish. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the surprisingly quick review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't in good faith hold up the nomination over something that isn't in the requirements, so since you've fixed the other two items of concern, I am promoting this. Please do give the alt text a serious consideration though. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)