Talk:HMS Fury (H76)

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

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Fury (H76)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Will do this soon. JAGUAR  16:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    "HMS Fury was an F-class destroyer built for the Royal Navy in the 1930s" - could be more specific, was it not 1933?
    "By July 1942, a Type 286 short-range surface-search radar" - de-link this if not notable
    "Photos taken of the ship in July 1944 show her with a Type 271 radar mounted on her searchlight platform that was probably installed during her last refit" - this sentence needs a citation
    "The ship cost 248,538 pounds" - why not £248,538?
    "before beginning a brief refit on the Humber." - link the Humber
    "On the night of 15/16 November she bombarded Leros with the destroyers Exmoor and ORP Krakowiak[42] On" - missing full stop
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The assertions regarding the cameramen could be original research, but both candidates are included in the reference given.
  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:

Another well researched article that has nothing to major enough to constitute it being put on hold. I noticed a few minor prose issues, but they can be addressed any time. JAGUAR  21:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]