Jump to content

Talk:French battleship Condorcet/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 17:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

review

Very nice article. I have just a few comments:

  • "rather unsuccessful ships" - is there a more precise word than "rather"?
    • The quote from the source reads: "Heavy on coal, they were considered unsuccessful ships, but, were, however, useful in the Mediterranean due to their first-class armament of many rapid-fire guns."
  • "They were rated at 22,500 shaft " - sorry, is the "they" referring to the boilers or the ships?
    • Neither, the engines actually. Fixed.
  • "75 mm anti-aircraft guns were installed during the war on the roofs of the ship's two forward 240 mm gun turrets." - MoS says not to start a sentence with a number.
    • Fixed.
  • "to prevent Goeben from breaking out into the Mediterranean" - "breaking out" - does this mean escaping into the Mediterranean?
    • Yes, breaking through the blockade.
  • "Channel Division" - what is this?

MathewTownsend (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
    b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
    b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    c. no original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    no edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Pass!

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]