Talk:HMS Grafton (H89)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Thurgate (talk) 00:12, 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. stern. Link for this.

2. The ship's complement was 137 officers and men in peacetime. Suggest - You mention how many men she carried in wartime as well.
 * Done and done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:25, 5 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.


 * Sturm the GA machine, continues his rampage of articles on the destroyers of the Royal Navy. Passed. Thurgate (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)