Talk:Main Navy and Munitions Buildings/GA1

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for the GA review, and should have the full review soon. Dana boomer (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * In the lead, you say "The Department of War headquarters remained in the Munitions Building, through the early years of World War II, until 1942, when space became available in the newly constructed Pentagon. The Department of War vacated the Munitions Building in 1943," Which was it, 1942 or 43?
 * I have tried clarifying. The Pentagon was built and occupied one wing at a time, with some space available beginning in spring 1942, for War Department headquarters and some other offices.  The Pentagon was completed in 1943, and the Munitions Building vacated. --Aude (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Books need ISBNs where possible.
 * Added, except one that I can't find an isbn for. --Aude (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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, 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:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Overall, this is a very nice article. I have just a couple of comments about referencing and prose, so I am putting the article on hold for now. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing the article. Let me know if you see anything else that I can address. --Aude (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the prompt response! Everything looks good, so I am passing the article to GA status.  Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)