Talk:Littorio-class battleship/GA1
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 22:14, 14 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: no External links [4] (no action required).
- Alt text: images all lack 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):
- "while serving as a flagship, crew was increased..." should this be "while serving as a flagship, the crew was increased..."?
Done
- 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):
- Article seems sufficiently detailed, including design, construction and service history.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation):
b (all significant views):
- No issues with POV.
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No issue.
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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:
- All images appear to be PD or appropriately licenced.
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- One very minor point re prose and the issue of the isbns, otherwise this is article looks ready to me. Anotherclown (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed both - thanks for reviewing the article! Parsecboy (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Cheers, passing now. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed both - thanks for reviewing the article! Parsecboy (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- a Pass/Fail: