Talk:BAP Carrasco
 | BAP Carrasco was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 19, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:BAP Carrasco (BOP-171)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 15:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]I'll start this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- 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:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Comments
[edit]- Overall, there are two major problems with the article at the moment. Therefore, @Elelch:, I am putting the review on hold for a period of seven days, so that you can fix them.
- Firstly, and most egregiously, there is the plagiarism — a large portion of the characteristics section is a direct copy of [1]. This section also goes into unnecessary detail, and is awkwardly phrased. The characteristics section will thus need a thorough rework. I will provide in-depth examples once the plagiarism has been removed.
- Secondly, the lead section needs work - there are citations in the lead, and it is too short. The lead should provide a summary of the service history.
- Thirdly, there are several minor spelling/grammatical errors throughout the article. For example "one of Carrasco's lifeboats" should be capitalised; "in Callao sea" needs rephrasing; "both, in Peruvian waters and in the Antarctica" comma should be removed and so should 'the', etc.
I will take a further look once the above problems have been addressed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
The nominator has not edited this page for a month, and there are still significant deficiencies. The lead has obvious spelling and grammar errors, and the characteristics section needs to be improved both in terms of depth and writing. However, the infobox and history section are both adequate. I am failing this nomination, but think it could be GA standard within a short period of time. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)