Talk:Switzerland and weapons of mass destruction/GA1

Latest comment: 7 years ago by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 15:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply


Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Lead and infobox; all good
  • Section 1;
    • Head of General Staff; what is the position presently called, link it
    • Federal Military Department (EMD); I think it is FMD
      • "EMD" is the German abbreviation. We do this a lot with articles pertaining to Switzerland. Regardless, the correct title of the department at the time was the "Military Department," and I corrected that. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • Link uranium bomb
    • 60-100 kt; what is this kt, never mentioned before, also what is 60-100, range, if so use en dash
    • use {{convert}} for 2-3 km, also use en dash
    • use conversion template while mentioning units, here are the cases, and also abbreviate the units from second mention
    • Swiss federal council is over linked
      • Fixed. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
      • ten tons; also mention ten in numbers for consistency
      • 3,238 kilograms
      • 2,283 kilograms
      • 3 kilograms
      • 5,000 kilograms
      • sixty to one hundred kilotons
      • 20 kilograms (about 44 pounds)
      • 20 kilograms of plutonium
        • I believe I have fixed all these numbers and units. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • The Swiss Air Force Mirage III jet would have been able to carry nuclear bombs as far as Moscow; this awkward, as far as Moscow what? what is the reason
    • What is IAEA? The acronym is never mentioned before
    • less and less relevant; just "less relevant"
  • Section 2; all good
  • Scherrer's image doesn't have a date
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. 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):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply