Talk:Action of 28 January 1945/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Citations: - the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required)
 * Disambiguations: none found - (no action required)
 * Linkrot: Ext links all work - (no action required)
 * Alt text: Images lack alt text (although this is not a requirement for GA anyway so its up to you if you want to add it or not) - (no action required)

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * You might considered putting something in the Lead to indicate that the action occurred during the Second World War;
 * Done
 * The first paragraph of the Background section is a little repetitive (use of January three times, and again in the first sentence of the second paragraph) - maybe reword a little?;
 * Done
 * I think the grammer in this sentence is a little off: "Upon sighting the German destroyers the British cruisers fired star shell and turned to the south on a course parallel to the German ships." Specifically was only one star shell fired or were there multiple? IMO it should be reworded to either "fired a star shell" or "fired star shells"; and
 * Fixed. 'Star shell' is normally used in cases where multiple shells were fired (from memory), but this is probably needlessly technical/jargon as 'shells' works well
 * The battle section has quite a number of stubby paragraphs. IMO these could be merged into 3 paragraphs which might make the prose flow a bit better. Specifically I would link the first and second paras and the third and fourth.
 * Done
 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):


 * It is stable.
 * 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':


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Just a couple of minor issues with prose as above. Anotherclown (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All comments addressed now, I think. Thanks for the review. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers Nick. Looks good IMO. Happy to pass for GA. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)