Talk:Fastra II/GA1

GA Review

 * Please note that at the time this review was firstly written, the article was named "FASTRA II".

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk)  23:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

At current this article does not meet the good article criteria. There are several major concerns:
 * The article has only a single reference. All the information in the lead also needs to have references from reliable sources.
 * The article lacks sections. While the specification section is fine, there should also be a section about background, development or similar.
 * The specification should be converted to prose instead of just bullet point. This also gives the opportunity to explain and elaborate about the specifications where needed.
 * The article needs a lead, see WP:LEAD. The lead can be smaller than the current main bulk of information, but only needs contain the main information. Everything plus the bulk of information is then repeated in the main sections.
 * Avoid writing terms like "See the section "Specifications" below, in this article." Avoid referencing other sections in prose.
 * Avoid linking common terms like heat, space and temperature. See WP:OVERLINKING.
 * "Deliver" is a disambiguation page and an overlink.
 * Is "FASTRA" an abbreviation for something? If it is, explain what. If not, the article should be moved to "Fastra II".
 * The image should be no larger than 300px.


 * Most of the above bullet points have hopefully been addressed, by Heymid (the author of the article), except for the specification part (bullet point #3). Hey  Mid  (contributions) 18:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am failing the article for the meantime, as it fails several of the main heralds of the good article criteria (particularly referencing and structure, everything else is rather trivial). Hopefully the above points show how the article can be further improved. When done, feel free to renominate. If you have any questions about how to meet the criteria, send me a message on my talk page, or on this article's talk page, as I will be watching it. The best of luck, Arsenikk (talk)  23:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer the question asked on my talk page: the "development" section is written as prose, because it is a continuous flow of information. A bullet list (see bullet (typography) is the current formatting used under "full specifications", where the information is provided using incomplete fragments. There are very few places good encyclopedic articles use such bullet lists. Also please note that the article still does not have any secondary sources. Arsenikk (talk)  09:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a secondary source now. Hey  Mid  (contributions) 12:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the third bullet point issue has now also been addressed. Hey Mid  (contributions) 19:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)