Talk:HMS Hostile (H55)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Canadian   Paul  16:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, hopefully later tonight. Canadian  Paul  16:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Here it is!


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) 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:
 * 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:


 * 1) Under "Service", second paragraph, "River Plate" requires disambiguation.
 * Fixed.


 * 1) Same section, third paragraph: "The ship, together with her sister, HMS Hero (H99), and the destroyers HMS Nubian (F36) and HMS Mohawk (F31), was ordered to Gibraltar on 22 August where they were to join Force H." This sentence needs to be formatted in some way because right now it is grammatically incorrect. "The ship [...] was ordered to Gibraltar on 22 August where it [...]" or "The ship, together with [...] were ordered to Gibraltar on 22 August where they [...]" could work in different forms, but right now there is a confusion.
 * Good catch.


 * 1) The external link can remain a basic URL, but it needs to have a better description. Without clicking on the link, the reader has no way of knowing what its relevance is or what kind of information it will lead to.
 * I swapped out the link for a better one. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And that's about it! To allow you to address these concerns, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days. I'm always open to discussion on any of the items, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up in real life, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian  Paul  05:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Great! A short, but comprehensive article, just the kind that's perfect for GA, which I will now be passing it as. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian   Paul  05:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)