Talk:HMS Nairana (1917)/GA1
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Ian Rose in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 07:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Start of review
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- "The Royal Navy requisitioned her on 27 February 1917 for completion as a combined landplane and seaplane carrier.": The lead and elsewhere refers to the ship being sold to the navy?
- I realise now Plowman never used the word "sold" so have reworded -- unless of course Storm has a source that explicitly says it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's confusing. Layman says hired, while Colledge & Warlow say purchased. Both agree that she was sold back to her builders.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Still says sold in the infobox. Zawed (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- I realise now Plowman never used the word "sold" so have reworded -- unless of course Storm has a source that explicitly says it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- "The British Government released Nairana to Denny's after...": For a moment, I couldn't figure out who Denny was! Might pay to use the full name of the company here.
- Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- "The Royal Navy requisitioned her on 27 February 1917 for completion as a combined landplane and seaplane carrier.": The lead and elsewhere refers to the ship being sold to the navy?
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- No notes for the first two references listed, Chesneau and Colledge.
- Moved to a Further reading section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- A couple of issues come up when running the citation error report.
- Which report is that again? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- The "Error Check" option that you get when expanding the cite portion (next to the help, special characters etc...) of the edit page for the article. Hope that explanation is clear! Zawed (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Heh, never used that -- s'pose I should, tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- The "Error Check" option that you get when expanding the cite portion (next to the help, special characters etc...) of the edit page for the article. Hope that explanation is clear! Zawed (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Which report is that again? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- No notes for the first two references listed, Chesneau and Colledge.
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Overall, nice article as per usual, a couple of minor tweaks required before I pass as GA. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Tks Zawed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- All my comments have been dealt with, passing as GA. Zawed (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Many tks, Zawed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- All my comments have been dealt with, passing as GA. Zawed (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)