Talk:Diffused lighting camouflage/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 10:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • Suggest an infobox
OK, which type? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{Infobox research project}} Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Link US Air Force, photocell
Done.
  • Merge single and double liners in the lead and expand to two full paras
Done.

Section 1[edit]

  • counterillumination -> counter-illumination; make the change everywhere, counterillumination is not a dictionary word
Done.
  • Midwater Squid; Is "Midwater" part of the name or just the squid swims midwater, if the latter then change it as mid-water Squid
Done.
  • a Canadian professor at McGill University,[3] Edmund Godfrey Burr; first mention the name, then the context
Done.

Section 2[edit]

  • ordinary light projectors — neither designed for robustness, nor waterproofed — on temporary; em dashes must be unspaced
Done.
  • Mention the ship classes
Done.
  • Link General Electric, New York
Done (two different companies!)
  • National Research Council; use the acronym
Done.

Section 3[edit]

  • Link St Margaret's Bay
Done.
  • longer-range aircraft -> long-range aircraft
Done.

Section 4[edit]

all good

Images[edit]

  • File:B-24J-55-CO (cropped).jpg must a RD US tag, also the date must be date of first published not the date of upload
Done.
  • File:HMCS Rimouski K121 MC-2853.jpg must be moved to Commons before it is used
No, this is not a requirement.
The main area of overlap is in phrases like "corvettes HMCS Edmundston and HMCS Rimouski", and in the citations, which can't be worded any other way. The text is a paraphrase not a copy.
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: All done to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References and sources[edit]

  • All the page and date ranges must have en dash in between
    • R.C. Fetherstonhaugh, R.C., 1947, pages 337-341.
    • Burr, 1947, pages 45-54.
    • Burr, 1948, pages 19-35.
    • Summary Technical Report of Division 16, NDRC. Volume 2: Visibility Studies and Some Applications in the Field of Camouflage. (Wa....pages 14-16 and 225-241
Done.
  • From the sources section, I see that only Burr is used. Delete all the other or move to further reading section. If moved to FR section, fix the date and page ranges in them
Done.
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I forgot to mention, ISBNs are required to verify the reliability of the sources.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What are Burr works mentioned as sources, books or journals? They need to have reference numbers. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Journal papers. The Transactions are described on the Royal Society of Canada's website and at WorldCat, but there were no DOI numberings in those days; nor ISSNs, but those are in any case not necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:44, 15 January 2017 (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):
  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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diffused_lighting_camouflage/GA1&oldid=760295311"