Talk:French ironclad Trident
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Sturmvogel 66 in topic History fix
 | French ironclad Trident has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 27, 2014. (Reviewed version). |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:French ironclad Trident/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 16:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I'll take this article for review. I should have a full review up within the day. Dana boomer (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- As an initial comment, it looks like the history section includes quite a bit of work on a different article, due to a sandbox being moved around. What would your thoughts be on getting an admin to clean up the history a bit, since it is currently a bit confusing?
- I don't really think that it's important, but I can ask if you think that it's worthwhile. This is the mess that taught me never to copy-paste whole articles from a sandbox.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not hugely important to the GA process, but it would be nice to get cleaned up. I've left a message for another admin to see what they think.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- No images of the ship? Obviously images are not a necessity for GA status, but most ship articles have them in droves.
- None of the ship herself, but I did just find one of a model of her that wasn't properly categorized on Commons.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- My apologies for the delay in finishing this review. At this point, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA. The issue with the article history is minor and has nothing to do with the GA criteria, so I'm going to follow up on that on my own. Nice work, as always! Dana boomer (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
History fix edit
Right, I am not familiar with the topic matter...what part of the history are we saying should be where? Just double checking....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- The first edit on 12 January 2010 should be moved to Template:Imperial Russian Shipyards. The edits from 10 Aug 2010 to 03:04 11 Aug 2010 should go to Océan-class ironclad. After this it gets complicated because I built all three of the individual Ocean-class ironclad ship articles on the same page until I copy-pasted them to their final destinations and created the first legitimate edit for this article on 22 August 2010.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)