Talk:Armement Air-Sol Modulaire/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Spell out and link all acronyms the first time you use them and put the abbreviation next to the term. Convert all metric measurements to English units in the infobox and the main body.

B. MoS compliance:
Non-governmental references need publisher information. Press releases are OK.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
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:

Hello and thanks for the review. I've already provided conversions for all metric measurements and spelled out abbreviations however, i'm not so sure about what you mean by providing publisher information for non-governmental references. According to WP:CITEHOW

Citations for World Wide Web articles typically include:

name of the author(s)
title of the article within quotation marks
name of the website (linked to a Wikipedia article about the site if it exists, or to Website's "about" page)
date of publication
page number(s) (if applicable)
the date you retrieved it (required if the publication date is unknow

All of this info is already provided so what else is needed? --Victor12 (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- There are no links to the home pages of Interavia, Ixarm, Defense Industry Daily or Ares. That's what I meant by publisher.
  - OK, I've just inserted the links. --Victor12 (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]