Jump to content

Talk:HMS Syrtis/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 15:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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):
    I've copyedited the article a bit, and now it's at a good prose standard. It complies with all the relevant MoS sections.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    I'll have to AGF on the offline book sources, but online sources appear to confirm the substance of the article. Uboat.net isn't necessarily a reliable source, but it claims that its details come from the British National Archives, and I guess I'm willing to accept that.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The article seems to cover all the major aspects of the topic (design, construction, service history), and doesn't get lost in any excessive detail. It's a minor detail and might seem obvious, but I wish the text that discusses the boat's name pointed out that all the S-class subs were given names that begin with 'S'.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    The tone is appropriately neutral.
  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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    All the images are relevant and appear to have valid licenses.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Only one tiny detail, and this one will be ready for promotion! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the discussion at the other S-Class subs, I retract my comment about 'S'-names, and this article is promoted! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]