Talk:HMS Queen Mary/GA1

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

I shall be undertaking the review of this article against the Good Article criteria, per its nomination for Good Article status. ✽ Juniper§ Liege  (TALK)  01:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

The article passes quick-fail assessment. Main review to follow. ✽ Juniper§ Liege  (TALK)  01:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

GA assessment

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * Well written. The prose flows well and is generally well-integrated and reads well. There is a slight tendency to be overly-technical in places, especially in descriptions of the ship's body and features. It would be good if some of the terms that are taken for granted in the article, such as muzzle-velocity or casement, could be expanded upon slightly in the article. This should obviously not be done for all technical terms, but if done for 1 or 2 would ease the casual reader's experience greatly. As it stands though, this is not sufficient for failing an otherwise fine article, but for future considerations - especially in newly written articles.
 * b (MoS):
 * Conforms to manual of style. Some overlinking, but I have rectified the problem. In general, terms should not be linked more than once; also, well known geographical terms (like Russia) do not need to be wikilinked unless specifically relevant to the material.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * Well referenced.
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * Citations are to third party publications.
 * c (OR):
 * No evidence of OR.
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * Addresses major aspect of article subject matter.
 * b (focused):
 * Remains focused. No digressions.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * No issues concerning POV evident.
 * 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):
 * Images are properly tagged and justified.
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images are accompanied by contextual captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: Pass  ✽ Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  01:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: Pass  ✽ Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  01:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail: Pass  ✽ Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  01:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)