Talk:Design B-65 cruiser/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by NuclearWarfare in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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 (TalkContribs) 06:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
    The image was just deleted under the F7 criteria; could you go check that out? NW (Talk) 15:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Have asked, am very confused as to why it was deleted... —Ed (TalkContribs) 21:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
    The new image seems appropriate. NW (Talk) 01:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    NW (Talk) 03:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Passed! Good work, Ed. NW (Talk) 01:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply