Talk:HMT Royal Edward/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by DSachan in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Below is my review of the article:

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    No issues with the prose.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    Why is there no section of Design and Construction? Does it qualify the criteria of being 'broad in coverage'? I am not sure.
    Thanks. It works wonders. That's what I wanted. - DSachan (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
Thanks - DSachan (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the another nice review. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply