Talk:Bussard-class cruiser/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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)

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:

   • A few minor prose issues, nothing major; placing the article on hold until these can be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

   • Thanks for review the article and spotting all those silly mistakes :) Should all be fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

   • OK, everything looks good, so passing to GA. Dana boomer (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)