Talk:Sea Cloud/GA1

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

Starting review. Ajpralston1 (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * References properly cited. Information which could be challenged is referenced. Reliable sources. Spanish source in English article? not sure!
 * 1) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * OK
 * 1) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * OK
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * OK
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * not applicable

The article does not meet quick-fail criteria and thus is not quick-failed. Thorough review now started. Ajpralston1 (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Good article criteria

1. It is Well-written
 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct.
 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. It is Factually accurate and verifiable
 * (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout.
 * (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
 * (c) it contains no original research.

3. It is very Broad in its coverage
 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

4. Written in a Neutral POV
 * (a) it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

5. It is Stable with no ongoing edit wars
 * (a) it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. It is Illustrated by images if possible
 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

N.B. 3a) The article is a bit on the short side. It does contains information relevant to the topic and is "broad" in its coverage. However, looking at other ship articles i believe all the necessary aspects are covered. However, the article should be enlarged with more information on development and operational history. Another picture or two would also benifit this article.

However, it does meet the good article criteria and is awarded good article status. Ajpralston1 (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)