Talk:NSB Class 73/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: —Darkwind (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are some minor grammatical errors throughout the article, such as subject-verb agreement, missing plurals, etc. A copyedit from a member of GOCE might be in order, or you can do it yourself if you feel up to it. 17:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Addressed. 16:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. 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:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Almost there - a good copyedit is all that's left to do. 17:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC) All criteria have been met. 16:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments and discussion

I've reviewed the article and it's almost ready to go — just the grammar points I noted as to criterion 1a in the table above. The copyedit will need to be addressed before I'd be willing to pass the article to GA status (a typo was fixed on the article just today, even), but that shouldn't take too long. I'm putting the nomination on hold pending the edits. You can notify me here or on my talk page when the article has been copyedited, or I will come back in a week to re-review. —Darkwind (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've done a copyedit, and found some issues. But unless you can be specific to where any additional issues lay, it is difficult for me to do much more. In my experience, a request at the Guild can take an eternity. The GA does not require perfect prose, and if neither of us can identify the specific issues, it is good enough for the criteria. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit, it looks much better. As to criterion 1a, it does not require "perfect prose", but it does require that spelling and grammar be correct. At any rate, I do not see any obvious errors at this point, so it does appear the article meets all criteria. —Darkwind (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)