Talk:HMS Lizard (1757)

HMS Lizard (1757) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 19, 2018. (Reviewed version).

Military history: Maritime / British / European / Napoleonic era

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Lizard (1757)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ultimograph5 (talk · contribs) 21:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Review beginning. Ultimograph5 (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Very well written article, definitely above standard.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	All MoS guidelines met.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Good references provided.
	2b. 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).	Reliable sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None found.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None found.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses all main aspects.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is a perfect size for the subject, doesn't go into unnecessary detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Appears neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable article.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images properly tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image choice is exceptionally good.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article is well above standard for Good Article, nearly at Featured Article standard.

Add topic