Talk:HMS Euryalus (1901)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 04:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

I made a few very minor tweaks to the text, mostly for grammar and flow. With that in mind, the article is very well written, and elegantly arranged, and complies with MoS policies. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; 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

Verifiable with no original research:

The article has a healthy collection of reputable sources in its bibliography. It makes frequent citations to the sources, and does not look to possess any instances of original research. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article seems to cover all relevant aspects of the topic for which reliable information is readily available. No incorporation of trivia. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article does not appear to hold any form of bias regarding its topic. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The most recent edits in the revision history go back to 2007, and do not indicate that in any time since then any edit warring has taken place, so I'd say we're in the clear, here. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Both images used in the article serve a relevant purpose, are appropriately licensed, and presented properly. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

After reading through the article and checking it against the GA criteria, I am confident that the criteria is satisfied. Congratulations! As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]