Talk:68-pounder gun/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Nice work

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Fix capitalization of titles in references as per WP:CAPS#Composition titles. Did the formal name of the 80-pdr include the hyphens? If not then add them to that paragraph.

This gun was typically referred to formally as "68-pr. of 95 cwts., S.B." in British manuals and tables. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Windage calculation needs to clarify that it's .1 inch on each side of the shell.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Cheers Sturmvogel. Think I've got everything - also found a copy of Lambert's book in a second hand shop today, bargain at £4! Ranger Steve (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert's great. It will be key if I ever start work on the Warrior article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]