Talk:Mogador-class destroyer/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 a list of other comments which, whilst they are 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) 19:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Be advised that I'm traveling with limited Internet access until the 11th, so I may not be able to fix things within your time limit. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for letting me know. Please take as long as you need.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Don't use "etc." in prose as it lacks clarity. Write out what you mean (either fully or in summary) in normal text.
 * Fixed.
 * There is a whole paragraph at the end of propulsion that is formatted as a blockquote but without speech marks or attribution. Can this either be fully formatted as a quote or as standard text.
 * Attributed.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Better, although I recommend using his full name in the attribution and the name of the book.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2009 (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:

Other comments
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
 * Your ship names are not formatted consistently. The most usual form is to put the name in italics without speech marks, but however you do it make sure it is the same (the problem occurs in the history section as well).
 * Fixed.
 * There were still quite a few of these that I fixed myself. Please double check for these in the future.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What happened after the war - were they scrapped? I think so, but none of my sources have a date. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work, the article has now passed as GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)