Talk:USS Ozark (1863)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 08:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well-written:

After a couple of punctuational adjustments, I feel the article complies with MOS guidelines on prose and layout. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (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:

The article frequently cites several applied reputable sources. Nothing appears to be original research. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (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 satisfactorily covers all basic aspects of encyclopedic information on the topic. Nothing included seems trivial or otherwise unneeded. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (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 shows no bias towards or against the subject. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

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

The immediately-seen revision history goes back to 2006, and no evidence of an edit war is shown. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

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

The article uses a single image which is public domain, and is relevant to the article because it portrays the topic. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2013 (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

After some minor tweaking outlined in the "Prose" check, I feel that this article qualifies for inclusion with the "War and military" GAs. Congratulations! Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)