Talk:SAS President Pretorius/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 01:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Well constructed, will come back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Section 1; Consistency maintained, all the parameters—Displacement, Length, Beam, Draft, Power, Propulsion, Speed, Armament and armor—seem fine. Conversion templates and links in right place.

• Section 1; para 2; plated over to form a small flight deck; Is it a "flight deck" or "helipad"? The changes were to employ a helicopter right? I forgot to ask this in Steyn's review.
  • My sources generally call it a flight deck, but they're essentially syonymous when only a helicopter can be used.
• Section 2; para 1; A comma (,) after 21 November 1960
  • No, it's not a separate clause.
• Section 2; para 1; Mention General Pieter Grobbelaar's position, for better understanding. Army chief I think so.
  • Good idea.
• Section 2; para 3; the ship laid up on -> the ship was laid up on
  • Indeed.
• Section 2; para 3; President Pretorius formally decommissioned on 11 May 1971 -> President Pretorius was formally decommissioned on 11 May 1971

• Section 2; para 3; Plans to reactive and modernise, I think it must be "Plans to reactivate"

• Section 2; para 3; shortages of money prevent them from being realized; "prevented"

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I knew what I meant to say, just couldn't put it down properly, I guess. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)