Jump to content

Talk:HMT Royal Edward/GA1

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

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]