Talk:Light tank Mk VIII/GA1

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

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended another comment which, whilst not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose is good, but there are two MOS problems that are delaying the passage of this article: 1) Although I am, on the whole, in support of solid blocks of text, these are a little too long (especially given the technical nature of the information). I suggest breaking up the paragraphs as below (although I leave the final choice to your discretion).
 * ". . . too heavy to be carried by the Hamilcar glider. / The same 12hp engine as in the Tetrarch . . ."
 * ". . . in defending airfields and airbases. / The Mk VIII was also discussed in terms . . ."
 * 2) There are quite a few necessary links that should be made but aren't. Check closely for others, but the ones I saw were: War Office, General Aircraft Hamilcar, Battle of France and howitzer. It is also usual for items linked in the lead to be linked a second time when they appear in the main body of text.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:


 * All the issues have been addressed; thanks for your help! Skinny87 (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Other comments
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
 * I'm not a fan of placing images on the right directly under second level headings. I even think there is something against it in the MOS.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Article has passed, good job.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)