Talk:Type 97 automatic cannon/GA1
GA Review
{{Good article tools}}
Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 00:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
=GA criteria=
:(a) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1a}}{{GAList/check|aye}}
:(b) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1b}}{{GAList/check|aye}}
:(a) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2a}}{{GAList/check|aye}}
:(b) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2b}}{{GAList/check|aye}}
:(c) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2c}}{{GAList/check|aye}}
:(a) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3a}}{{GAList/check|aye}}
:(b) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3b}}{{GAList/check|aye}}
:(a) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6a}}{{GAList/check|aye}}
:(b) {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6b}}{{GAList/check|aye}}
=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)
{{GAList/check|aye}} 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)