Talk:PS Washington Irving/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article needs some corrections in order to pass to GA.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The lead section should summarize the entire article content. Additionally there is information in the lead that is not in the body of the article. The use of citations in the lead section is optional however, there is currently overkill there.

   I've addressed this. WilliamKF (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

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):

   There is a large gap in the history of the ship between its launching and the sinking incident; 1912–1926. What happened during those years?

   I can find very little on this middle period. I've added as much as I can locate after scouring the Internet. WilliamKF (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

   This is often a common problem that I've run into myself. I'll consider the content passable for this issue but it's possible that someone else may disagree in the future. I'd recommend trying to find further information.

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):

   The article is "photo heavy" in that the photos are overwhelming the text of the article. You should decide which pics aren't really needed.

   I've dropped one of the photos. WilliamKF (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm placing this article on hold until the issues are addressed. --Brad (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

   Please let me know if any issues remain. WilliamKF (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

   Looks better but I'm having some second thoughts on the prose now. I went in and did some copy editing myself but the article needs an experienced editor to go over it. If you have someone in mind please ask them to look at it. Alternatively I can try again myself. --Brad (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   I do not have anyone in mind, your improvements look good. WilliamKF (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

   I copy edited another round and its as good as I can make it. I will be passing the article shortly. --Brad (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)