Talk:USS Concord (PG-3)/GA1

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

Below is my review of the article:


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1. Lead: I would personally keep the lead maximum of 3 paragraphs.
 * I shortened it to three. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. Discrepancy in date of laying down: Lead and text say it to be March 1888; the infobox says it is May 1888.
 * 3. Discrepancy in date of launch: lead says, March 1890; the main text says March 1889.
 * The May 1888 and March 1890 dates were the correct ones; I've corrected the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:




 * Rest everything looks fine. There were a few 'on's missing before the dates. I inserted them. Thanks - DSachan (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)