Talk:N3-class battleship/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 11:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action required).
• Linkrot: External links all check out [4] (no action required).
• Alt text: images all have alt text [5] (no action required).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks using Google searches reveal no issues (no action required).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • "the Admiralty initially planned to built..." → "the Admiralty initially planned to build..."
  • "and armed with eight or nine, in four twin or three triple..." eight or nine what?
  • "The only limitations of the design were the ability...", ability or inability?
  • "and main armoured deck was 8 inches..." perhaps "while the main armoured deck was 8 inches..." Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Good catches all.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • All major points cited using WP:RS
  • No issues with WP:OR as far as I can see.
  • Minor issues with citation format:
    • Note 14: "Part 1, pp. 6–7" should this be "Campbell, Part 1, pp. 6–7"?
    • Notes 17, 19, 20 and 21: Inconsistent presentation of the "Navweaps.com" refs: is some places you write "Navweaps.com" and in others "navweaps.com". Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Fixed.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Given the ships were cancelled before they were built the level of coverage seems sufficient to me. Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues with POV as far as I can tell. Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here. Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

  • One image is PD and the other has a fair use rationale. Both seem suitable for the article. Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Just a couple of minor issues with prose and citations, otherwise this looks like it meets all the GA criteria to me. Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Too easy. Changes look good, passing review now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)