From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer:
Anotherclown (
talk) 16:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
Looks good so far, some minor points though:
- There are no citation errors and external links check out (no action required),
One dab link (to
Schichau) which needs to rectified; and
Done
- The prose is a little wooden in places but this won't hold it back in my opinion.
More to follow.
Anotherclown (
talk) 17:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
Overall summary
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B.
MoS compliance:
- Is it factually accurate and
verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Well referenced.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Well referenced.
- C.
No original research:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- Is it
neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain
images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have
fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
suitable captions:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Overall, another good article IMO. Well done.
Anotherclown (
talk) 17:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks for taking the time to review the article, Anotherclown.
Parsecboy (
talk) 17:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
- No problem.
Anotherclown (
talk) 17:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
reply