Talk:HMS Vigilant (1777)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 12:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Hi,

• Will do in the next day or two. Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

review

• Really very good, with everything in place. Well written. Just a few nitpicks:

• "and she had a beam of 36 ft (11.0 m)" why not "with a bean of 36 ft ..." - "had" makes it sound her bean length changed, whereas the article doesn't clarify if measurement errors accounted for the difference.

• "She was then survey" > surveyed?

• "sometime during the year" > that year?

• That's all for now. Well done!

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestions, all done. Thanks for the review.

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)