Talk:Beacon-class gunvessel/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Thurgate (talk · contribs) 19:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * prose:  (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * 2) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
1. Might it be better to use both of the ships draught in the info box? Or simply make a note that the draught is the aft one in the info box
 * I've added the note of maximum draught to the infobox; I really don't see a point to adding the forward draught.

2. Midge was also an exception and was retained in Chinese waters until 1907 when she was sold at Hong Kong - Do you have any sources that say who she was sold to etc?
 * Unfortunately, no. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2012 (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) 19:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no other issues. Passed. Well done Sturm. Thurgate (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)