Talk:HMS York (90)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMS York (90) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | HMS York (90) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
.svg)
Proposal to merge HMS York (1928) into HMS York (90)
editProposal: merge the HMS York (1928) article into HMS York (90)
Rationale: Both articles cover the same ship, with the HMS York (1928) article using the less-correct name (the ship's year of launch, rather than the more-correct pennant number).
Comments? Questions? Objections? --Kralizec! (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- this makes sense :D 17:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- seems this has been forgotten about, iv'e gone ahead and done a redir Emoscopes Talk 09:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS York (90)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Thurgate (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- prose:
(MoS):
- prose:
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- 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):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments
edit1. those of York were raked. Is their a wiki-link for raked, as its not very clear as to what you mean by raked.
- Changed.
2. was deleted during construction. Suggest - removed instead of deleted
- Hard to remove something that was never installed in the first place, but I've reworded it.
3. She became flagship of the 2nd. Suggest - She became the flagship of the 2nd
- Good catch.
4. That month the ship. Suggest - In September the ship.
- Reworded.
5. more thorough one in December. Suggest - more thorough refit in December
- Agreed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow you to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns. Thurgate (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Nice work Strum. Passed. Thurgate (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Date clarification
editLaid down on 16 May or 18 May 1927? DancesWithGrues (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)