Talk:French ironclad Trident/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 16:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take this article for review. I should have a full review up within the day. Dana boomer (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * As an initial comment, it looks like the history section includes quite a bit of work on a different article, due to a sandbox being moved around. What would your thoughts be on getting an admin to clean up the history a bit, since it is currently a bit confusing?
 * I don't really think that it's important, but I can ask if you think that it's worthwhile. This is the mess that taught me never to copy-paste whole articles from a sandbox.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not hugely important to the GA process, but it would be nice to get cleaned up. I've left a message for another admin to see what they think.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * No images of the ship? Obviously images are not a necessity for GA status, but most ship articles have them in droves.
 * None of the ship herself, but I did just find one of a model of her that wasn't properly categorized on Commons.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * My apologies for the delay in finishing this review. At this point, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA. The issue with the article history is minor and has nothing to do with the GA criteria, so I'm going to follow up on that on my own. Nice work, as always! Dana boomer (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * My apologies for the delay in finishing this review. At this point, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA. The issue with the article history is minor and has nothing to do with the GA criteria, so I'm going to follow up on that on my own. Nice work, as always! Dana boomer (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)