Talk:USS Hunchback

GA-Failed

 * 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):
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I'm sorry, but I am going to have to fail this article. For one, there are only 3 references, and each paragraph should be referenced. Also, the article is very short and does not contain enough information. It is very well written, however, and it is a good start to a good article, but renominate it once these issues have been dealt with. Cheers, Ṝέđ ṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ  Drop me a line §  13:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

B-Class fail
This article is not meeting criteria 3 - the lead section is very weak. Criteria 2 is questionable based on the length of the article. Brad101AWB (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)