Talk:Fairey Spearfish/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 14:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll read through tonight and start the review proper tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;


 * "until it was briefly used for ground training purposes beginning on 30 April 1952, until it was scrapped shortly afterwards." Minor, but a repetition of "until it was... until it was..."
 * "The large internal weapons bay could carry up to four 500-pound (230 kg) bombs, four depth charges, a torpedo, or a 180-imperial-gallon (820 l; 220 US gal) auxiliary fuel tank. " I wasn't 100% sure if this was four bombs and four depth charges and a torpedo; I presumed it was either four bombs, or four charges etc., but it might be worth clarifying. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.


 * My only concern here was the lead, which felt a little on the short side. The other bits in the main section that I thought could fit nicely in the lead were:
 * That it was designed to fly from the Malta-class carriers;
 * The dates between which it was designed/tested;
 * Some sort of basic description of the plane, perhaps drawing on the specifications section.
 * What do you reckon? Hchc2009 (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.


 * None found. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;


 * Seems to cover the literature suitably. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).


 * Suitably focused. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.


 * Appears neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.


 * Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;


 * All good. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.


 * Yes; no captions, but would seem unnecessary given their positioning. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've expanded the lede a little; I generally avoid technical detail there because it seems redundant to the main body. I also made the other changes that you requested. See how they read.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)