Talk:HMS Fury (H76)

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Jaguar in topic GA Review

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