Talk:SNCASO SO.8000 Narval/GA1

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

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 14:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I don't agree that the Similar to list needs to be cited, but I've rendered it invisible until we get a better consensus about that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Some copyedits made
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * https://oldmachinepress.com/ is a blog, what makes you think that it meets WP:SPS requirements? (The other sources look OK) Earwig check is clean
 * Scroll to the bottom of the page; the blogger's published three books on engines and aircraft.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Seems to cover all the aspects that I would expect for an airplane article
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The one image has an appropriate fair use rationale.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: