Talk:Bussard-class cruiser/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 19:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take this article for review, and should have my full comments up by tomorrow. Dana boomer (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * References, should the Nunez ref "The Spanish-American war" be "The Spanish-American War"?
 * Yup - probably forgot to fix it when I copied it from google books.
 * Lead, "Bussard and Falke were broken up for in 1912," - there's either an extra word or a word missing here.
 * Fixed.
 * Lead, "but the remaining four ships remained in service" - remaining...remained (rather repetitive).
 * Also fixed
 * General characteristics, "A layer of Muntz metal sheathing" Is Muntz a type of metal, or a brand, or something else? Anything we could link to?
 * Yeah, I don't know why I forgot the link to Muntz metal
 * Service history, "never returned for an major dockyard work." Extra word?
 * Probably started writing "returned for an overhaul" and then switched halfway through ;)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A few minor prose issues, nothing major; placing the article on hold until these can be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for review the article and spotting all those silly mistakes :) Should all be fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, everything looks good, so passing to GA. Dana boomer (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A few minor prose issues, nothing major; placing the article on hold until these can be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for review the article and spotting all those silly mistakes :) Should all be fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, everything looks good, so passing to GA. Dana boomer (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)