Talk:HMT Royal Edward/GA1

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

Below is my review of the article:


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * No issues with the prose.
 * 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):
 * Why is there no section of Design and Construction? Does it qualify the criteria of being 'broad in coverage'? I am not sure.
 * There's not a lot in sources, but I've cobbled together a paragraph. Let me know if you think it works. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It works wonders. That's what I wanted. - DSachan (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Pass/Fail:




 * Thanks - DSachan (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the another nice review. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)