Talk:Stephen Mallory/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Fix capitalization of titles in references as per WP:CAPS#Composition titles

Done.

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Notes 41 and 50 verge on OR; find a source for these statements

Done. The reference to the battleship-battle cruiser controversy is a weak one, but it is the best that I have. Perhaps you can give a better one, or otherwise eliminate it altogether, as I don't think anything depends on it.

Almost forgot, there's a needed cite in the commerce-raiding section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. PKKloeppel (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
The article on New Ironsides says that the damage inflicted by the David was insignificant. Confirm this.

The reference is supplied. The Wikipedia article on USS New Ironsides is just plain wrong.

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Thank you for the suggestions. I have interspersed my responses with your comments. PKKloeppel (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]