Talk:HMS Good Hope (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)

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)