Talk:French battleship Bretagne/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 16:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'll review this article.

review

• Center line goes to a disambiguation page.
  • See the last bullet under Transportation-related markings. BTW, this is a co-nom between Parseboy and myself, but you can just post here as I've got it watchlisted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

ok

• I added a link to Attack on Mers-el-Kébir in the lede as it helps clarify to those who only read ledes what is going on. You may want to fix it. I was trying to avoid having two blue links next to each other.

• Are you interested in this photo of the battleship Bretagne exploding? (from the Attack on Mers-el-Kébir article)
  • I actually removed that photo from the article when we started the rewrite - the uploader has uploaded images in the past and claimed to hold the copyright, when they were in fact from some website. In all likelihood, he does not actually hold the copyright on the photo, so we can't use it. Parsecboy (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• ok, I think this is a fine article. Feel free to revert any changes I've made.[1] Mostly I linked things for my own edification. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass!

A really interesting and well written article. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)