Talk:Edward M. Cotter (fireboat)/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):
 * Establish context by mentioning the country in the first sentence. The first instance of "William S. Grattan" should be bolded, while the second instance of "Edward M. Cotter" should be in italics. The sentence "At 108 years of age..." must be rewritten to exclude the age, since this will change next year—never include the age of something, but instead state the year of creation (that is static). The sentence "The Cotter mounts five water cannons or fire monitors that are capable of pumping 15,000 US gallons per minute (950 L/s)" is not mentioned elsewhere in the main body text. There is too much detail in the lead; the lead is to summarize the article, and not have too much detail about each event. Instead describe details in the respective sections. An article this short does not need a lead more than two paragraphs (but three is also okay). Look at WP:LEAD for more details. In the history section, avoid repeating link to Buffalo, wikilink "Elizabeth City, New Jersey", and don't bold "Firefighter". There are two instance of a linked date—we just changed the MoS to not allow this. "Port Colborne Ontario" should be "Port Colborne, Ontario, Canada". "Buffalo Fire Department" is wikilinked far too often (the first mention will suffice). The two sections "National Historic Landmark" and "Friends of the Cotter" are too short, and should be merged—for instance in to "Heritage". Also avoid one-sentence paragraphs and mentioning the age of the ship. The see also section should be reduced to "List of National Historic Landmarks in New York" and "History of Buffalo, New York"; the four other articles should be provided through wikilinking their use in the article.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Consider using two rows in the reference (not a requirement).
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * There should be a section on construction and design of the vessel (not subordinate or embedded in the history section).
 * 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):
 * Do not use galleries in the mainspace (this functionality is provided for use in the user space). Instead, consider left-aligning some of the images. Please copy all the images to the Commons (this tool makes it easy) and create a category there, using commonscat or commonscat-inline to create an external link.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * There is a fair bit to work on, but if all the concerns are addressed it should pass. Arsenikk (talk)  15:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done with the fixing. I did a final copyedit, and it know meets the criteria of Good Article. Congratulations! Arsenikk (talk)  19:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a fair bit to work on, but if all the concerns are addressed it should pass. Arsenikk (talk)  15:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done with the fixing. I did a final copyedit, and it know meets the criteria of Good Article. Congratulations! Arsenikk (talk)  19:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)