Talk:Design B-65 cruiser/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Left several notes inline with the feature; could you please check those out? NW ( Talk ) 03:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw your copyedits within the article, and they seem fine.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * If I am correct, File:Design B-65.jpg is replacable with a free image, but precedent would have us tag it with Rk instead? NW ( Talk ) 03:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No; as the ships were never built, any drawing made by someone intending to release it under a free license would be creating a derivative work of line drawings etc. in books. See the lead image in Design 1047 battlecruiser for a similar situation. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  06:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The image was just deleted under the F7 criteria; could you go check that out? NW ( Talk ) 15:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have asked, am very confused as to why it was deleted... — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The new image seems appropriate. NW ( Talk ) 01:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * NW ( Talk ) 03:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Passed! Good work, Ed. NW ( Talk ) 01:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * NW ( Talk ) 03:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Passed! Good work, Ed. NW ( Talk ) 01:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)