Talk:68-pounder gun/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * This gun was typically referred to formally as "68-pr. of 95 cwts., S.B." in British manuals and tables. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This gun was typically referred to formally as "68-pr. of 95 cwts., S.B." in British manuals and tables. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This gun was typically referred to formally as "68-pr. of 95 cwts., S.B." in British manuals and tables. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Cheers Sturmvogel. Think I've got everything - also found a copy of Lambert's book in a second hand shop today, bargain at £4! Ranger Steve (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Lambert's great. It will be key if I ever start work on the Warrior article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)