Talk:Type 97 automatic cannon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 00:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

GA criteria

Well-written:

With the issues below addressed and satisfied, the article satisfies the MOS policies for grammar, as well as structure and layout. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

Though relying on a small list of publications at present, the article contains a bibliography of reliable sources that it makes good and frequent use of. Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article seems to satisfactorily cover all relevant aspects of its topic. No trivial or fluffy text in sight. Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article maintains a neutral approach to its subject. Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Since at least October 2007, the article has not been subjected to any edit warring or similarly disruptive behaviours. Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The article's sole image at this time is public domain, and performs a most definitely relevant purpose as an illustration of the topic of the article. Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Comments

• Section "Development and description", paragraph 2: Is there any particular reason why the description of the rifle in the second paragraph begins in present-tense and then ends in past-tense? Given what's said in that paragraph it seems it should be either one or the other, and most likely past-tense.
  • Examples of the weapon still exist, so I've put all but the sentence about the heaviest anti-tank rifle in present tense.
• Section "Development and description", paragraph 3: Is "both" really the best word to use for three different shell-firing options? Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Good catch. Thanks for reviewing this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Ping--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds good. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The article satisfies the GA criteria, and is passed. Congratulations! To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)