Talk:Davara

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Davara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100905212334/http://www.fleetwood-trawlers.info:80/index.php/category/steam-trawlers/steam-trawlers-picture/page/42 to http://www.fleetwood-trawlers.info/index.php/category/steam-trawlers/steam-trawlers-picture/page/42/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Davara/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 21:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Basic GA criteria

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations – not applicable.
9. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
10. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
11. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
12. No original research.
13. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
14. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
15. Neutral.
16. Stable.
17. Illustrated, if possible.
18. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

For reviews, I use the above list of criteria as a benchmark and complete the variables as I go along. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

A lot of amendments were necessary and most were corrections of one kind or another. You need to be more thorough in proofreading and copyediting before nominating an article and also check facts: for example, Selby is not a city, only a town. Even so, and despite being short in length, the article provides a full coverage of the Davara's career and is an interesting read. Having done the necessary corrections, it now ticks all of the applicable boxes above and I'm happy to promote it to GA. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Lettler (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)