Talk:N3-class battleship/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 11:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action required).
 * Linkrot: External links all check out (no action required).
 * Alt text: images all have alt text (no action required).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks using Google searches reveal no issues (no action required).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "the Admiralty initially planned to built..." → "the Admiralty initially planned to build..."
 * "and armed with eight or nine, in four twin or three triple..." eight or nine what?
 * "The only limitations of the design were the ability...", ability or inability?
 * "and main armoured deck was 8 inches..." perhaps "while the main armoured deck was 8 inches..." Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catches all.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All major points cited using WP:RS
 * No issues with WP:OR as far as I can see.
 * Minor issues with citation format:
 * Note 14: "Part 1, pp. 6–7" should this be "Campbell, Part 1, pp. 6–7"?
 * Notes 17, 19, 20 and 21: Inconsistent presentation of the "Navweaps.com" refs: is some places you write "Navweaps.com" and in others "navweaps.com". Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Given the ships were cancelled before they were built the level of coverage seems sufficient to me. Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues with POV as far as I can tell. Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues here. Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
 * One image is PD and the other has a fair use rationale. Both seem suitable for the article. Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Just a couple of minor issues with prose and citations, otherwise this looks like it meets all the GA criteria to me. Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Too easy. Changes look good, passing review now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)