Hugo Armstrong has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 15, 2022. (Reviewed version). |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hugo Armstrong article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Hugo Armstrong/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Djmaschek (talk · contribs) 23:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Initial review
editI will review this article for GA class. I've skimmed through it and it looks very good. Djmaschek (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Review 1
editGA class. For GA reviews, I usually make the nominator fix all errors, however trivial. In this case, the article looks so good that this was not needed. I added a couple of year dates in paragraph 1 under Squadron command. That was the only thing I saw that needed to be fixed. Djmaschek (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Done (1) Well-written, (2) Verifiable, (3) Broad coverage, (4) Neutral, (5) Stable, (6) Illustrated.