Talk:HMS Eagle (1918)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

1. External links check ok
2. There are two dab links Maritza and Zareba

First one dealt with, the second includes the definition.

1. The text and inf box differ on the beam a beam of 115 feet (35.1 m) to 105 feet (32.0 m) (exclusive of bulges) is this because the bulges are not included or at a different time in service?

Changed to include the bulges in both places.

1. Same with the draught 26 feet 7 inches (8.1 m) at deep load text to 26 feet 8 inches (8.1 m) (deep load) inf box

Done.

1. I seem to remember that Flight (military unit) were not considered notable by themselves for an article so you might want to remove the red links.

I'm not so sure about that. The FAA had no unit larger than a flight for the first ten years or so of its existence.

1. The ISBN for Smith, Peter C. (1995). Eagle's War: War Diary of an Aircraft Carrier. is not recognised and needs checking also needs a location added

Fixed

1. Friedman has the location written as Annapolis, Md while Gardiner has Annapolis, MD

Fixed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

On hold

Another good read - I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)