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

Reviewer: Thurgate (talk · contribs) 15:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   prose: (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   

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:

1. and there purchased for the Royal Navy. Suggest - and was purchased for the Royal Navy

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) 15:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, apologies for the delay and thanks for the review.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Passed. Good job Jacky. Thurgate (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]