Talk:HMS Bellerophon (1786)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) 23:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, I am happy to tell you that this article has passed GA without the need for any further improvement. Listed below is information on how the article fared against the good article criteria, with suggestions for future development. These are not required to achieve GA standard, but they might help in future A-class or FAC review process. I've read Cordingly's book myself although some years ago now and I well know how difficult it is when working with a detailed and complicated topic to ensure that you've achieved the correct balance between detail and accessibility - I think you've done a very good job here.
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Its a minor cosmetic point, but the "First commission" section is very short to have a level 2 heading - with the picture of Pasley there as well it looks a little untidy. Could this be made a subheading of "Construction and commissioning" or perhaps integrated into the section below?


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Thankyou and congratulations, an excellent addition to Wikipedia:Good Articles. All the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)