Talk:HMS Good Hope (1901)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Good Hope (1901)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

Well-written:

After a few minor grammatical tweaks on my part, I feel that the article satisfies the MOS policies for grammar and prose, layout and structure. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

(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 makes use of a good dose of reputable published sources, and does not appear to include any original research. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

(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 covers all important aspects of its subject for which reliable information is accessible. No information covered appears irrelevant. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

(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 is free of any bias towards or against its subject. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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

The immediate revision list shows that no edit warring has taken place in the last three years, so we're clear on this one. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

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

All three images used in the article serve a valid purpose and are properly licensed. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

(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 making minor adjustments where it seemed needed, I feel this article is good to go. Congratulations! As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Good Hope (1901). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705225545/http://www.coronel.org.uk/goodhope.php to http://www.coronel.org.uk/goodhope.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)