Misplaced Pages

Talk:BGM-75 AICBM

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sturmvogel 66 (talk | contribs) at 21:10, 10 December 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:10, 10 December 2010 by Sturmvogel 66 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Good articlesBGM-75 AICBM has been listed as one of the History 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.
Review: December 10, 2010.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States / Cold War GA‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military science, technology, and theory task force
Taskforce icon
Weaponry task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
Taskforce icon
Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:BGM-75 AICBM/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    Change the reference on aircraft designations to the one on missile designations.
    Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Not a whole lot here to cover, but it's comprehensive enough for what was actually done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - The Bushranger One ping only 21:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Categories: