Talk:Colorado-class battleship/GA1
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Ed! in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- It is reasonably well written:
- "The elevation of the main battery was increased to 30 degrees due in part to rumors that Imperial German capital ships' guns could elevate to 30° and a picture of the British Queen Elizabeth that appeared to indicate the same ability" - What does this mean? Explain the part about the picture more clearly for the reader; I honestly don't understand that part at all.
- I believe a photo was taken of QE with her guns at maximum elevation, then the U.S. then triangulated to find the angle. How should I word this? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Maryland fired her big guns in anger for the first time in World War II..." - That doesn't sound very professional. Recommend it be reworded.
- Fixed. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- The Commons point in the "Notes" section should be put into a {{commons}} template.
- Fixed. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- "The elevation of the main battery was increased to 30 degrees due in part to rumors that Imperial German capital ships' guns could elevate to 30° and a picture of the British Queen Elizabeth that appeared to indicate the same ability" - What does this mean? Explain the part about the picture more clearly for the reader; I honestly don't understand that part at all.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable:
- Pass The citing meets the bare minimum GA standard, though I would personally cite more of the dates and numbers.
- Every paragraph is cited at the end; all of the information within the paragraph preceding a citations is fully covered... 03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Pass The citing meets the bare minimum GA standard, though I would personally cite more of the dates and numbers.
- It is broad in its coverage:
- Pass No problems there.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy:
- Pass No problems there.
- It is stable:
- PassNo problems there.
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
- Pass No problems there.
- Overall:
- On Hold As always, your article only has a few minor nitpicks to fix before promotion! —Ed!(talk) 01:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for the compliment and the review :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Easy enough. The article meets the GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. Well done! —Ed!(talk) 13:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for the compliment and the review :-) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- On Hold As always, your article only has a few minor nitpicks to fix before promotion! —Ed!(talk) 01:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)