Login
Login

Talk:Bravo November/GA1

GA Review

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Bravo November/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Bravo November/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrison49 (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
  2. :a (prose): {{GAList/check|aye}} b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|aye}}
  3. :: The article is well written, although the lead section could do with being expanded slightly so as to summarise some more of the article. I recommend a copyedit just to have a fresh pair of eyes taking a look at the wording.
  4. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
  5. :a (references): {{GAList/check|aye}} b (citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|aye}} c (OR): {{GAList/check|aye}}
  6. :: References are used sufficiently and back up key facts.
  7. It is broad in its coverage.
  8. :a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|aye}} b (focused): {{GAList/check|aye}}
  9. :: If some additional information on the construction is available, this would help to bulk out the 'Construction and callsign' section somewhat. The article covers the subject well.
  10. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
  11. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|aye}}
  12. :: The subject is covered neutrally.
  13. It is stable.
  14. :No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|aye}}
  15. :: The article has not changed radically over the past couple of weeks.
  16. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
  17. :a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): {{GAList/check|aye}} b (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|aye}}
  18. :: The sole image in the article is freely licensed and includes a suitably concise caption.
  19. Overall: The article accurately covers the history of the aircraft and is well written. I am placing this review on hold until the additions are made. As this is my first Good Article review, I will be seeking a second opinion to check I'm doing things properly. Harrison49 (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Just to make sure the article is the best it can be, I would recommend a copyedit by the Guild of Copy Editors. I know from personal experience they do a fantastic job. Harrison49 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  20. :Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|aye}} Passed - Well done! Harrison49 (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  21. ::