Talk:HSwMS Loke (1869)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Lede is slightly anaemic, and could do with another sentence to flesh it out.
 * I honestly don't know what to add; there's already pretty serious duplication between the lead and the service para.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Do we know why funds were withheld from her when requested?
 * Not specifically, but probably because it was thought obsolete.
 * 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) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

One small question, possibly unanswerable, and an expansion to the lede, and this will be good to go. Skinny87 (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)