Talk:HMS Amazon (1799)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and have copy edited it. Please feel free to revert any errors I introduced. Although this article is short, it tells a good story in a clear style. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): Clearly written b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS
- a (prose): Clearly written b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
- a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): Covers major areas b (focused): Remains focused on topic
- a (major aspects): Covers major areas b (focused): Remains focused on topic
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias: Neutral
- Fair representation without bias: Neutral
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.: Stable
- No edit wars etc.: Stable
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail: Pass
- Pass/Fail: Pass
Congratulations!