Talk:Gorgon-class monitor/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eurocopter (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

While I believe the article meets GA criteria and I'm going to pass it, I have a few recommendations regarding referencing. First of all, it would be good to add footnotes to sensible labels in the infobox such as cost, propulsion, speed and complement (actually the more the better). Secondly, in order to make your life easier through an eventual ACR, you should considering adding more footnotes to paragraphs such those in the Background and Armour sections (even if you duplicate the footnote already existent at the end of the para)

There would be as well a structural recommendation, the article currently contains too many sections for its length. Consider renaming General characteristics to Characteristics and make current sections Propulsion, Armament and Armour subsections of the Characteristics section.

In conclusion, even if I'm passing this now, please do take into consideration my comments above. Keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]