Talk:French ironclad Montcalm/GA1

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

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 'The Alma-class ironclads[Note 1] were designed as a improved version of the armored corvette Belliqueuse suitable for foreign deployments.' - 'Improved', surely?
 * How about improved versions?
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Would suggest adding the sentence about why it may have taken three years to build the ironclad.
 * Three years is about average for this period.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Does Rear-Admiral Landorfe have a full name that can be wikilinked?
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I would have passed this if I hadn't been unsure about the 'improvised/improved' sentence, and the need for the explanatory sentence. Once these are done, I think the article can be passed. Skinny87 (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch on the sentence. I'll go back and update all of the other articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No pronlem. Your suggestion on wording is fine and can be added in. I'll pass this now. Skinny87 (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)