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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk · contribs) 05:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Well constructed, will come back shorty. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 05:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC) reply

• Section 1 & 2; 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 3.1; Link World War I per WP:REPEATLINK
• Section 3.2; In May and June 1929 to In May–June 1929

Very well written, almost flawless. I see that comments from T7's review were taken care here. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 11:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks. All done, Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 12:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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) 00:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC) reply