Talk:Disney bomb/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 03:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• full name for "UK" in info box. Done. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• italise "aircraft" next to "Launch platform". Done. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• why isn't "Disney Swish" boldened? Any reason for its being italicised? Done. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• "hardened, concrete" "conventional" "A Disney bomb, just after release" no need for commas Done.Catsmeat (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• "targets such" missing comma after "targets". Done. Chris857 (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Description and development

• "During World War II" change to "During the Second World War" since the latter style is used at article's start. Done. Catsmeat (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Reference for third and fourth paragraphs? Partially done, one reference added.Catsmeat (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

:* Undone Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 12:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• "accelerating the bomb by around " replace "by" with "from" Reworded and clarified.Catsmeat (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• huge chunk of text at the end of the fifth paragraph unsourced.

:* Undone Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 12:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• merge the second last and last paragraphs. Done.Catsmeat (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Is someone going to do anything regarding the "Citation needed" templates? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Testing and deployment

• "The 92nd Bombardment Group, was" "a large, German, concrete" no need for commas. Done. Catsmeat (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
• "Testing of the Disney Bombs" remove capital letter. Done.Catsmeat (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• " The resulting damage" replace "resulting" with "resultant" Done.Catsmeat (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Combat

• "On the 4th of April 1945" "On the 30 March" "on the 27 of March" See WP:DATE Done.Catsmeat (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Images, referencing and miscellany

• please add alt text. See WP:ALT Done. Catsmeat (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• File:Disney Bomb Diagram.png and File:Victoryairpowerstill.png are text sandwiching.
• ref pages should be tightened to "p. PAGE NUMBER", instead of "pg. PAGE NUMBER". Done. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• date of publication should follow author's surname without brackets. eg. "Jackson 2004, p. 123". Done. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Why's there a large quote for the last source of "Bibliography"? Ment to be incorporated into the article. Removed Done.

Used Template:harvnb for the references --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.  Fixed Article has been restructured per your suggestion --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

End note

Article is in great shape, so I wouldn't mind passing it. With a few tweaks here and there, and if the prose can possibly be improved, the article will be a big chance comes FAC. Finally, I'd like someone to do me a favour in return – please review one of my GA nominations, they are Lockheed YF-22 and [[Sukhoi Su-33]. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)