Talk:HMS Duke of Edinburgh/GA1

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

Reviewer: Thurgate (talk) 23:07, 1 February 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. which developed a total of 23,000 indicated horsepower. Maybe change developed to produced
 * Done.

2. built for the Royal Navy in the mid-1900s. Suggest - giving the exact date when it was built I see your point.
 * Built how? Laid down, launched or completed? The present wording orients the reader sufficiently in time.

3. While on that duty the ship captured the German merchantman Altair of 3,200 tons GRT on 15 August. Do you mean the German merchant ship/vessel? Or is it called the merchantman? Fair enough, I was a bit confused about that but now I understand.
 * Merchantman means merchant ship. If it were part of the ship's name, it would be italicized.*

4. The ship then landed a demolition party that blew the fort up on 10 November and she rejoined the convoy. Suggest - The ship then landed a demolition party, which blew the fort up on 10 November and she then rejoined the convoy.
 * I like this wording better.

5. the two leading ships of the squadron. The needs a capital as it is the start of a sentence
 * Good catch. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:41, 6 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) 14:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Passed Thurgate (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)