Talk:Hispanics in the United States Coast Guard/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Question: Does this article need a new reviewer? JonCatalán(Talk) 15:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? Pyrotec (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just asking, since it's been 15 days. ;) JonCatalán(Talk) 19:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been working my way through the article fixing minor problems (see article history). I always tend to do two passes: the first highlighting problems (but its often easier to fixed them, rather than list them here and wait for them to be fixed; and then to do an overall summary. I currently have five GAN reviews on the go and I've passed another two and failed one since 26 September 2010; and I've done no editing for two days. Not an excuse, just a comment. Do you want a new reviewer (I know that you are not the nominator)? Pyrotec (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no, I just thought the review had gone inactive. Carry on. JonCatalán(Talk) 19:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Inital comments
This article is GA-standard overall, but there are two very minor "problems" that need some attention:

Overall, these are relatively trivial. So should not take much effort to fix, I then be will be awarding GA. Pyrotec (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The WP:Lead is intended to both introduce the article (which it does well) and to provide a summmary of the main points. As a summary of the main points, the lead mentions the current "highflyers", i.e. the Rear Admiral, but there is no mention of the "pionners", i.e those who served in cutters in the 1820/40s, nor in the various wars. A brief mention, but only brief, of them should be included.
 * Done- I hope. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Secondly, most of the web citations are "raw", i.e just the url and a title. Fuller citations, such as refs 1 and 2, should be provided for the majority of the existing web-based citations.
 * Done- I hope. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'm awarding this article GA status. Congratulations on producing a well-referenced article. Pyrotec (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: