Talk:Fu-Go balloon bomb/GA1

{{atopg

| status =

| result = Passed. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 02:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

}}

{{Good article tools}}

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

Reviewer: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 00:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

{{pb}}

I'll go ahead and review this article. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 00:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Looks good

• Looks good

• Remove "founded in 1927" since its not relevant to the 1933 balloon program
• Removed and replaced with the laboratory's purpose.
• Do we know why the 1933 project ended?
• I was unable to find this information.
• Link "Imperial Navy" at its first mention
• Linked.

• Looks good

• Delink "radiosonde" as it was already linked in the previous section
• Delinked.
• Do we know what Mexican states balloons were reported in to keep consistency with listing the US states and Canadian provinces/territories? [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fu-Go_balloon_bomb_incident_locations,_United_States_and_Mexico.jpg This map] shows balloons reported in North Territory of Baja California (183) and Sonora (147).
• Mikesh confirms the Mexican states, added.

• Looks good

• Is there a citation for the line "becoming the only fatalities from Axis action in the continental U.S. during the war"?
• Cited to the NRHP record.

• Looks good

• All sources are good

• All images have proper licenses
• All images have appropriate captions

• Stable, no war edits
• Neutral POV
• Focused on topic
• Broad in coverage

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.
2. : a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): {{GAList/check|y}}
3. ::
4. ::
5. : b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|y}}
6. ::
7. ::
8. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
9. : a. (reference section): {{GAList/check|y}}
10. ::
    1. ::
    2. : b. (citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|y}}
    3. ::
       1. ::
       2. : c. (OR): {{GAList/check|y}}
       3. ::
       4. ::
       5. : d. (copyvio and plagiarism): {{GAList/check|y}}
       6. ::
       7. ::
       8. It is broad in its coverage.
       9. : a. (major aspects): {{GAList/check|y}}
       10. ::
           1. ::
           2. : b. (focused): {{GAList/check|y}}
           3. ::
              1. ::
              2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
              3. : Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y}}
              4. ::
              5. ::
              6. It is stable.
              7. : No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|y}}
              8. ::
                 1. ::
                 2. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
                 3. : a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): {{GAList/check|y}}
                 4. ::
                 5. ::
                 6. : b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|y}}
                 7. ::
                 8. ::
                 9. Overall:
                 10. : Pass/fail: {{GAList/check|y}}
                 11. ::
                 12. ::

                 (Criteria marked 14px are unassessed)

                 {{ping|Goszei}} I've finished my review of the article and left some comments. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 00:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

                 :: {{ping|Goszei}} Everything looks good now. Good job on this article. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 01:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

                 {{abot}}