Talk:Fu-Go balloon bomb/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 00:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and review this article. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 00:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

• Looks good

Lead

• Looks good

Background

• Remove "founded in 1927" since its not relevant to the 1933 balloon program
  • Removed and replaced with the laboratory's purpose.
• Do we know why the 1933 project ended?
  • I was unable to find this information.
• Link "Imperial Navy" at its first mention
  • Linked.

Design and development

• Looks good

Offensive and defenses

• Delink "radiosonde" as it was already linked in the previous section
  • Delinked.
• Do we know what Mexican states balloons were reported in to keep consistency with listing the US states and Canadian provinces/territories? This map shows balloons reported in North Territory of Baja California (183) and Sonora (147).
  • Mikesh confirms the Mexican states, added.

Abandonment and results

• Looks good

Single lethal attack

• Is there a citation for the line "becoming the only fatalities from Axis action in the continental U.S. during the war"?
  • Cited to the NRHP record.

After World War II

• Looks good

References

• All sources are good

Images

• All images have proper licenses
• All images have appropriate captions

Overall

• Stable, no war edits
• Neutral POV
• Focused on topic
• Broad in coverage

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

@Goszei: I've finished my review of the article and left some comments. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 00:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Goszei: Everything looks good now. Good job on this article. PizzaKing13 ^¡Hablame! 01:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.