Talk:HMS Defence (1907)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Thurgate (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2011 (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. 1,460 long tons. Have you missed out a zero? Or is it 1,460. 2. Armament section needs an inline citation. 3. was consisted. Suggest - you remove was. 4. How come the complement in the infobox is 802 yet in the service section it is between 893 and 903?
 * Good catch.
 * Done.
 * Done.
 * Had to change the figure in the infobox, but that's a peacetime figure. There's no source giving the wartime complement, although I'd expect the losses on Warrior were a good approximation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:13, 6 March 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) 18:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)#
 * Nice work, Strum. Passed. Thurgate (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)