Talk:HMT Royal Edward/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Below is my review of the article:
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- No issues with the prose.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- 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.
- There's not a lot in sources, but I've cobbled together a paragraph. Let me know if you think it works. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. It works wonders. That's what I wanted. - DSachan (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Why is there no section of Design and Construction? Does it qualify the criteria of being 'broad in coverage'? I am not sure.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Thanks - DSachan (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the another nice review. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)