Jump to content

Talk:Bussard-class cruiser/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 19:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll take this article for review, and should have my full comments up by tomorrow. Dana boomer (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • References, should the Nunez ref "The Spanish-American war" be "The Spanish-American War"?
    • Yup - probably forgot to fix it when I copied it from google books.
    • Lead, "Bussard and Falke were broken up for in 1912," - there's either an extra word or a word missing here.
    • Fixed.
    • Lead, "but the remaining four ships remained in service" - remaining...remained (rather repetitive).
    • Also fixed
    • General characteristics, "A layer of Muntz metal sheathing" Is Muntz a type of metal, or a brand, or something else? Anything we could link to?
    • Yeah, I don't know why I forgot the link to Muntz metal
    • Service history, "never returned for an major dockyard work." Extra word?
    • Probably started writing "returned for an overhaul" and then switched halfway through ;)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: