Jump to content

Talk:Attack on USNS Card

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAttack on USNS Card has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 25, 2011Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 2, 2018, May 2, 2021, and May 2, 2024.

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Attack on the USNS Card/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrison49 (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    The article follows a good style and layout throughout.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    References are well used.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    The articles follows the major aspects and remains focused on the subject.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    The article maintains a neutral point of view.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    The article does not appear to be subject to any edit wars.
  6. 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:
    Images not in the public domain have full fair use rationales.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    A very interesting read. Harrison49 (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing my work.Canpark (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]