# Talk:Supermarine Seamew

Was the Supermarine Seamew's type number really SB.6? Since SB/6 was the works designation of the Short Seamew it seems too much of a coincidence. --TraceyR 17:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Supermarine Seamew/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 23:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this article. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 23:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


### Design and development
Put a space between R. and J. (in the infobox and lead too)
Done. AM
Why was he preparing drawings, were they ordered by the Air Ministry?
Supermarine sometimes submitted ideas as drawings, the ones for the Seamew were accepted by the Air Ministry. Text amended to clarify this. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Replace the period after "a crew of three" with a semicolon and lowercase the succeeding "The"
Done. AM
When was the aircraft named Seamew?
When the contract was awarded, text amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Remove the comma after "radial engines"
Done. AM
Combine paragraphs 3 and 4 together
Done. AM
"scaled-down version of the Southampton" link Southampton here and delink it in the next paragraph
Done. AM
"height of 13 ft 1" is this supposed to mean 13 ft 1 in?
Sorted. AM
Remove "in earnest"
Done. AM


### Testing and operational history
"in March 1930" capitalize "In"
Done. AM


### Overall
Neutral
Broad and focused
No war edits
Image properly licensed
Sources ok
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)

@Amitchell125: I've left some comments. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 23:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
@PizzaKing13: above comments done. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
@Amitchell125: Everything looks good. Well done, I'll pass this review. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 19:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)