Talk:SS Iowan/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Hi! I will be conducting the GA review for this article, and I should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- In the first paragraph of the World War II section, you say "to American-Hawaiian for the former Dakotan as...". Should this be former Iowan?
- Yes. Changed. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Should the World War II section be retitled "World War II and later years" or something along those lines, since it discusses the Iowa's career from World War II until the ship was scrapped?
- Yes. Changed. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- In the first paragraph of the World War II section, you say "to American-Hawaiian for the former Dakotan as...". Should this be former Iowan?
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- There have been a few edits by people other than you since you last edited. I don't think they changed anything major, but you may want to check.
- The image description had been modified from USS to SS. I have changed it back to the correct USS — Bellhalla (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- There have been a few edits by people other than you since you last edited. I don't think they changed anything major, but you may want to check.
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Another nice article! There are a few minor issues with prose/MOS, which I have detailed above, as well as a concern about a few edits to the article that were made by someone other than you. I'm putting the article on hold to await replies to these. Drop me a note if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Replies above. Thank you for the review. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Nice job...passing article. Dana boomer (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)