Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Convoy GP55

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

Convoy GP55

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

• Featured article candidates/Convoy GP55/archive1

I'd like to nominate this new article on a convoy battle fought off the Australian east coast in 1943 for A class status. Any comments on how the article could be improved further to reach FA status would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment(s)
  • No problems reported with disambig or external links. Alt text tool (if I am reading it right) reports some images are in need of alt text, please check and advise.
  • You introduction is a little sparse, any chance of getting another paragraph in there? I think the article could benefit from it.
• Otherwise everything appears in order. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 06:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Tom. The images look fine to me - I get alternative text displaying when I hold my mouse over them (using the Google Chrome browser) and the tool seems to confirm this. I've added a second para to the introduction per your suggestion. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks food. That second paragraph for the intro really helps. I find nothing lack in the article, though I do caution that if you are heading for FAC you may have some trouble with people who evaluate an article based on its size. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 19:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Tom. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I agree that the lead is a little short, but sometimes that can't be helped much. I played around with it a bit, hope you don't mind. One question though: in the lead, it says that I-174 escaped undamaged, but in the body, it says it was lightly damaged. Which one was it? Everything else look good though. Good luck at FAC. Parsecboy (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.