Talk:SS Washingtonian (1913)/GA1

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Is the 9% increase in sugar your calculation or was it in one of your references? If it's your calcuation, it's fine to leave it as is with no ref (it's a simple calculation and therefore shouldn't be in the realm of OR, although I'm not completely sure).  However, if it's cited in one of your refs, it would be great to have a reference on it, just to put it firmly out of the realm of OR.
 * It was my calculation based on prices for the same sugar futures on the dates listed. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

This is a very well-written article, and I am passing the article to GA status as it stands. The one comment above is simply fodder for further work. If you have any questions, let me know here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)