Talk:HMS Vestal (1777)

HMS Vestal (1777) 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: November 12, 2023. (Reviewed version).

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

Military history: Maritime / British / European / Early Modern / American Revolution

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	American Revolutionary War task force

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Vestal (1777)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ykraps (talk · contribs) 10:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A short article but by no means the shortest to appear at GAN. I'll take a look over the next couple of days. --Ykraps (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Are the pages in your version of Winfield, 664 and 668 or is that a typo? --Ykraps (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ykraps: Yep, the page numbers are correct for my version. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. They are 266 and 268 in mine. --Ykraps (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I would have liked to provide some useful feedback but am struggling to find anything to say. Yes, it's a small article but WP:petscan finds over 300 Good and Featured Articles of fewer than 7000 bytes. I have looked for further information on the subject in the not inconsiderable number of sources available to me and have found nothing. This appears to be a naturally short article. It is well written and MOS compliant. "On about" seems an odd turn of phrase to me, who would use 'on or about' instead but Google books turns up a few examples of the former. Sources look good and reliable, and I have manually checked three of the five for accuracy and plagiarism. Copyvio tool returns violation unlikely at 6.5% (mostly due to the titles of sources). Images appear appropriately licensed. Congratulations on producing another WP:Good article. --Ykraps (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]