Talk:HMT Royal Edward/GA1

GA Review

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.

   • 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)

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)

Thanks for the another nice review. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)