Talk:Milwaukee-class monitor/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 22:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

GAN Quicksheet 1.23 SM (Criteria)

Starting comments: Considering the pedigree of the nominator, this should be an easy enough pass.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  22:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Well written:
 * a. prose/copyright: Pictogram voting delete.svg ✅ The one thing that I think needs to be changed is that there needs to be some sort of sentence indicating when the Kickapoo and Milwaukee came onto the scene. As written currently, you're talking about two ships being commissioned and then all of a sudden there are four being given orders. What happened to the commissioning of the other two?
 * Added.
 * b. MoS compliance: Pictogram resolved.svg

2. Accurate and verifiable: Obviously, I'm going to have to take everything on good faith, as I don't have access to any of the sources you're using. That being said, your reputation is good, and having read enough academic writing for a lifetime, I can say it certainly doesn't read as if it were ripped from something. So... 
 * a. provides references: Pictogram resolved.svg
 * b. proper citation use: Pictogram resolved.svg
 * c. no original research: Pictogram resolved.svg

3. Broad in coverage: 
 * a. covers main aspects: Pictogram resolved.svg
 * b. focused/on topic:Pictogram resolved.svg

4. Neutral: 

5. Stable: 

6. Image use:
 * a. license/tagging correct: Pictogram voting delete.svg The "Date" field in the information template refers to the date of the work, not the date of upload. I put 1866 in for the first, based on the field above it, but please make sure that this is accurate. I didn't change the second item. That's something you need to do. It's okay to ballpark it, even to the decade/century, if that's completely unknown.
 * Both fixed.
 * b. relevant/properly captioned: 

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:
 * a. images that should have alt texts have them: Pictogram voting delete.svg Obviously this isn't required for this to pass inspection, but it's nice for usability reasons.
 * b. general catch all and aesthetics: 

Comments after the initial review:

A couple of minor things. This is very close, it just needs another five minutes of polish.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  22:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the surprisingly quick review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't in good faith hold up the nomination over something that isn't in the requirements, so since you've fixed the other two items of concern, I am promoting this. Please do give the alt text a serious consideration though.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  02:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)