Jump to content

Talk:Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey/GA1: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Comments: anything else ?
MWOAP.alt (talk | contribs)
+note
Line 4: Line 4:


'''Reviewer:''' -- <font color="green">&#47;[[User:MWOAP|<font color="green">MWOAP</font>]]&#124;</font><font color="blue">[[User_Talk:MWOAP|<font color="blue">Notify Me</font>]]&#92;</font> 10:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
'''Reviewer:''' -- <font color="green">&#47;[[User:MWOAP|<font color="green">MWOAP</font>]]&#124;</font><font color="blue">[[User_Talk:MWOAP|<font color="blue">Notify Me</font>]]&#92;</font> 10:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
<br />-- <font color="green">&#47;[[User:MWOAP|<font color="green">DeltaQuad.alt</font>]]&#124;</font><font color="blue">[[User_Talk:MWOAP|<font color="blue">Notify Me</font>]]&#92;</font> 15:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC) (New Signature note)


===Criterion===
===Criterion===
Line 20: Line 21:
|5=Y
|5=Y
|6a=Y
|6a=Y
|6b=N
|6b=Y
|7=
|7=
|7com=
|7com=
Line 43: Line 44:
{{cob}}
{{cob}}
*6B: [[:File:Osprey at Pensacola.jpg]] Foreign Language Content on this image, on commons.
*6B: [[:File:Osprey at Pensacola.jpg]] Foreign Language Content on this image, on commons.
:*{{done}}
*6B: [[:File:US Navy 091019-N-2147L-001 Aviation Boatswains Mate Handler 2nd class Dustin Shipman assigned to the amphibious transport dock ship Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) New York (LPD 21), directs an MV-22 Osprey.jpg]] needs renaming on the commons.
*6B: [[:File:US Navy 091019-N-2147L-001 Aviation Boatswains Mate Handler 2nd class Dustin Shipman assigned to the amphibious transport dock ship Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) New York (LPD 21), directs an MV-22 Osprey.jpg]] needs renaming on the commons.
:*{{done}}
*6B: The image with the caption "United States Marines MV-22B" needs to be changed to an appropriate caption.
*6B: The image with the caption "United States Marines MV-22B" needs to be changed to an appropriate caption.
:*{{done}}


===Comments===
===Comments===
Line 58: Line 62:


: Are there any outstanding items now? I've done about all the improvements I can think of... -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 20:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
: Are there any outstanding items now? I've done about all the improvements I can think of... -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 20:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
*Sorry for the delay, getting on it and should be done soon. -- <font color="green">&#47;[[User:MWOAP|<font color="green">DeltaQuad.alt</font>]]&#124;</font><font color="blue">[[User_Talk:MWOAP|<font color="blue">Notify Me</font>]]&#92;</font> 15:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:26, 2 June 2010

GA Review

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

Reviewer: -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 10:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- /DeltaQuad.alt|Notify Me\ 15:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC) (New Signature note)[reply]

Criterion

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the 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:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Reviewing...
    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:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


To Work On list (specifics)

Use the templates in the show box below to comment on how the tasks are going.

Templates to use
  • {{Fixed}} Fixed
  • {{Added}}plus Added
  • {{Not done}} Not done
  • {{Not sure}} Not sure
  • {{Doing}} Doing...
  • {{Isdoing}} Example is doing...
  • {{Tick}}, produces the tick alone — checkY
  • {{Cross}}, produces the cross alone — ☒N
  • {{Done-t}}, a non-graphical alternative to {{Done}} Done
  • {{Not done-t}}, a non-graphical alternative to {{Not done}} Not done
  • {{Thank you}} Thank you
  • {{Resolved}}, tick with additional message —
    Resolved
  • {{Merge done}}, for completed mergers —   checkY Merger complete.
  •  Done
  •  Done
  • 6B: The image with the caption "United States Marines MV-22B" needs to be changed to an appropriate caption.
  •  Done

Comments

Please do not change the status of the criterion, the reviewer will change that their selfs.

The first and third image items have been fixed or addressed. For the second item, the file name is long, but why is that really relevant here? -Fnlayson (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article Criterion #7 says they have to be compliant with the Image use policy. The specific IUP that I am refering to is naming of images. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 16:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I found a template for renaming the file on Commons... -Fnlayson (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any outstanding items now? I've done about all the improvements I can think of... -Fnlayson (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]