Jump to content

Talk:SS Black Osprey/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    A few minor inconsistencies. Please choose on of the typographical varieties of "New York – Rotterdam" and "Baltimore–Antwerp". Why are some abbreviations encapsulated in small, and other regular size? This is a violation of the Mos, that also advises against periods—in particular where other non-punctuated abbreviations are used (such as the use of U.S. in this text).
    If you insist this is within the realm of the MoS, it is fine for me. Arsenikk (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): 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.:
    One edit? Impressive.
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    A few small MoS details and the article will pass—put on hold on the mean time.
    My replies interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Passed. Congratulations with another Good Ship. Arsenikk (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]