# Talk:HMS Philomel (1890)

This appears in para 1 of the 'Depot and training ship section: "...probably the Navy’s oldest fighting ship. Hall-Thompson advised that she had reached the end of her useful life..."
Who is, or was, 'Hall-Thompson'? I'm guessing he was something to do with the navy (an Admiral?) As can be seen above, this name suddenly jumps off the page without introduction or explanation.
RASAM (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Philomel (1890)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 18:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Well-written 
a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct
b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

The article is well-written with hardly any sentence or grammar errors. I would normally make a list of specific errors, but have decided that if the errors found amount to less than ten, I will fix them myself for the sake of the article. I have fixed the tiny errors myself and added some minor changes.
Verifiable with no original research 
a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
b. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
c. It contains no original research

The article uses book sources all of which contain the necessary information and are referenced with Harvard templates.
Broad in its coverage 
a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic
b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

The article is broad in its coverage, stays on topic and does not go into unnecessary detail.
Neutral 
It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

The article is neutral and does not include personal opinions or statements.
Stable 
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

The article is stable, its content does not change from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars or content disputes.
Illustrated 
a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

The article is illustrated with three images all of which are public domains and uploaded and from Commons.
Pass, fail or hold? 
With the article meeting the GA-criteria I'm going to pass it. Nice job people. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)