Talk:Design B-65 cruiser/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Left several notes inline with the <!-- --> feature; could you please check those out? NW (Talk) 03:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

   I saw your copyedits within the article, and they seem fine.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   If I am correct, File:Design B-65.jpg is replacable with a free image, but precedent would have us tag it with {{Rk}} instead? NW (Talk) 03:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

   No; as the ships were never built, any drawing made by someone intending to release it under a free license would be creating a derivative work of line drawings etc. in books. See the lead image in Design 1047 battlecruiser for a similar situation. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   The image was just deleted under the F7 criteria; could you go check that out? NW (Talk) 15:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   Have asked, am very confused as to why it was deleted... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 21:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   The new image seems appropriate. NW (Talk) 01:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   NW (Talk) 03:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

   Passed! Good work, Ed. NW (Talk) 01:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)