Talk:Tucker-class destroyer/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi there, I am happy to tell you that this article has passed GA without the need for any further improvement. Listed below is information on how the article fared against the Wikipedia:good article criteria. I have to say that I think this article is genuinely excellent and would support it at FAC as is if it came up there.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- My only (minor) suggestion, is to give the number of sailors killed on Jacob Jones in that ship's synopsis.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Good point. I added it there (and in the lead of USS Jacob Jones (DD-61), upon which this summary was based). — Bellhalla (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- My only (minor) suggestion, is to give the number of sailors killed on Jacob Jones in that ship's synopsis.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation):
b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned):
b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):
c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
Thankyou and congratulations, an excellent addition to Wikipedia:Good Articles. All the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. One of my fastest GAs, ever! — Bellhalla (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)