Talk:HMS York (90)/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. those of York were raked. Is their a wiki-link for raked, as its not very clear as to what you mean by raked. 2.  was deleted during construction. Suggest - removed instead of deleted
 * Changed.
 * Hard to remove something that was never installed in the first place, but I've reworded it.

3. She became flagship of the 2nd. Suggest - She became the flagship of the 2nd 4. That month the ship. Suggest - In September the ship. 5. more thorough one in December. Suggest - more thorough refit in December
 * Good catch.
 * Reworded.
 * Agreed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:26, 13 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) 19:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice work Strum. Passed. Thurgate (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)