Talk:Joint Agency Coordination Centre/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 08:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
On it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
This is quite close to GA, the following things need to be taken care of:
- It feels like the "History" section should have a different header, since it features more than the mere history of the JACC.
- Also, that section should probably be updated with the new developments?
- The "Relatives of passengers" section should be merged into "Activities".
- Reference #6 is a dead link.
That's about it. Good work so far! I am placing the review on hold for seven days. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I fixed the deadlink and added an archived version of it too. I could not think of a better title for the History section, so I divided the section into two subsections (Establishment and Search). Since the start of the underwater search in October 2014, there is not anything relevant to this article to add. I do not understand what you mean by merge the "Relatives of passengers" section into "Activities". It is a subsection of activities and the contents do not fit into either the "Search coordination" or "Media" sections, so in my opinion the section is fine. AHeneen (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, both of those were my mistakes. I had the article printed out, and there it is not so clearly visible which level headline it is so I thought that "Relatives of passengers" was seperate from "Activities". As for new developments I am guessing the JACC is not involved in the recent debris finds, since it is not in Australian waters? Assuming so, I am passing this article for GA. Congratulations! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- The JACC is not involved with the recent finds. Thanks for the review. AHeneen (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, both of those were my mistakes. I had the article printed out, and there it is not so clearly visible which level headline it is so I thought that "Relatives of passengers" was seperate from "Activities". As for new developments I am guessing the JACC is not involved in the recent debris finds, since it is not in Australian waters? Assuming so, I am passing this article for GA. Congratulations! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)