Talk:HSwMS Loke (1869)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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.

2. 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.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   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)