Talk:Type 97 automatic cannon/GA1

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 00:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

GA criteria
: With the issues below addressed and satisfied, the article satisfies the MOS policies for grammar, as well as structure and layout. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * (a)
 * (b)

: Though relying on a small list of publications at present, the article contains a bibliography of reliable sources that it makes good and frequent use of. Says the 21st century, &#34;I&#39;m 18 and I like it!&#34; (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (a)
 * (b)
 * (c)

:The article seems to satisfactorily cover all relevant aspects of its topic. No trivial or fluffy text in sight. Says the 21st century, &#34;I&#39;m 18 and I like it!&#34; (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (a)
 * (b)

. The article maintains a neutral approach to its subject. Says the 21st century, &#34;I&#39;m 18 and I like it!&#34; (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC) . Since at least October 2007, the article has not been subjected to any edit warring or similarly disruptive behaviours. Says the 21st century, &#34;I&#39;m 18 and I like it!&#34; (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC) : The article's sole image at this time is public domain, and performs a most definitely relevant purpose as an illustration of the topic of the article. Says the 21st century, &#34;I&#39;m 18 and I like it!&#34; (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (a)
 * (b)

Comments

 * Section "Development and description", paragraph 2: Is there any particular reason why the description of the rifle in the second paragraph begins in present-tense and then ends in past-tense? Given what's said in that paragraph it seems it should be either one or the other, and most likely past-tense.
 * Examples of the weapon still exist, so I've put all but the sentence about the heaviest anti-tank rifle in present tense.
 * Section "Development and description", paragraph 3: Is "both" really the best word to use for three different shell-firing options? Says the 21st century, &#34;I&#39;m 18 and I like it!&#34; (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Thanks for reviewing this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ping--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, that sounds good. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The article satisfies the GA criteria, and is passed. Congratulations! To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)