Talk:Meteor-class aviso/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 17:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct
 * Well-written Symbol support vote.svg

b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation
 * The article is well-written. Here is a list of minor sentence or grammar errors I discovered.
 * 1. "Both were scrapped in 1919–1921" - This sentence should be changed to "Both were scrapped in 1919–21" per MOS:DATEFORMAT
 * 2. "The Imperial Navy began building small avisos in the 1880s to serve in the main fleet in German waters" - This is the exact same wording from the Wacht-class aviso ‎article. Because the GA-nominator worked on both articles, it's an understandable error, but it should be fixed.
 * 3. "In 1901–1902" - MOS:DATEFORMAT
 * 4. "Steering was controlled by a single rudder" - This is also the exact same wording as the Wacht-class aviso ‎article. Because it's a very short sentence, I don't think it's a copyright violation, but it would be a good idea to reformulate it.

a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
 * Verifiable with no original research Symbol support vote.svg

b. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

c. It contains no original research
 * The article uses book sources which all are listed below and contains all the necessary text information.

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic
 * Broad in its coverage Symbol support vote.svg

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail
 * The article is broad in its coverage, addresses the main topics, and does not go into unnecessary detail.


 * Neutral Symbol support vote.svg
 * The article is neutral and does included personal opinions or statements.

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
 * Stable Symbol support vote.svg
 * The article is stable and its content does not change from day to day (edits made in the face of the GA-nomination is not included). Neither is it the subject of ongoing edit wars or content disputes.

a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
 * Illustrated Symbol support vote.svg

b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
 * The article has one image in the infobox. Giving the length of the article, it seems just fine. The image is from the German Federal Archive and uploaded to Commons as part of a cooperation project.


 * Pass, fail, or hold? Symbol support vote.svg
 * With the article meeting the GA-criteria and the points made in the "Well-written" section being minor issues or suggestion I'm going to pass it. Nice done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)