Talk:HMS Adamant (1780)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Don't capitalize in "Ordinary". A few too many "she"s; mix it up with the ship's name or "the ship"; most notably in the North America paragraph.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
What does this mean: Adamant was at first fitted for Ordinary? Use of the Template:Inflation might be nice, but it's certainly not required. Link Sheerness.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Issues fixed. Inflation not added since I'm not too knowledgeable on the template, though I agree it'd be a nice addition. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]