Jump to content

Talk:Northrop N-3PB Nomad/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC) I will get to this tomorrow.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    I've marked a sentence that needs some editing. Classics is misspelled in your cites.
Green tickY Fixed spelling of classics. Manxruler (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Magazines need publisher and place of publication.
Green tickYPeriodicals are never listed with publication locations; no style guides ever list this information, but for the sake of this review, the information has been added.
Quite right, that's my mistake. Feel free to revert.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  3. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
So who gets GA credit for this? I feel I'm among those who should be given credit. Manxruler (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]