Talk:ARA Rivadavia/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * Not Yet
 * 1) The lead should be expanded to summarize the entire article, including the backgroung and design sections.
 * 2) "She was the lead ship of her class; her sister ship was Moreno." -This doesn't seem as important as the dates of the ships construction, etc. It should be moved down in the lead.
 * 3) Something is wrong with one of the templates in the infobox.
 * 4) Why didn't the ship see service in World War II? Briefly discuss the politics of Argentina's nnuetrality during the war.
 * 5) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Not Yet
 * 1) "saw no active service". -Needs a ref.
 * 2) "virtually the end of her active career" -needs a specific page number for a ref.
 * 3) The further reading material should be in templates.
 * 4) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) Overall:
 * On Hold until a few minor issues are resolved. For the most part, the article looks very well done! - Ed! (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, it took a few days for me to get to it (real life intervened :), but I've expanded the lead a bit, fixed the template in the infobox and the citebook templates in the further reading section (although some are a little empty at the moment). For the references, the_Ed will have to fix those, since he put them in (I think). I'll give him a poke to remind him. Parsecboy (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * References have been added. Sorry for the great delay; I thought I had added them a few days ago! — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  17:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. The new references satisfy my concerns with the article, so it now meets the GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. Well done! -— Ed! (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)