HMS Euryalus (1901) 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: March 11, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
HMS Euryalus (1901) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from HMS Euryalus (1901) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 March 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The section "Live Bait Squadron" describes an engagement, and gives the day and the month when it took place, but not the year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.45.86 ( talk) 17:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Last sentence of paragraph 1 under Construction and service needs a citation. In the same section, the sentence that starts, "A month later Wemyss..." may be missing a word. It's interesting how the UK got some useful service out of an obsolete ship that was almost written off before the war began. B2=yes. Djmaschek ( talk) 02:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will ( talk · contribs) 04:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I made a few very minor tweaks to the text, mostly for grammar and flow. With that in mind, the article is very well written, and elegantly arranged, and complies with MoS policies. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! ( talk) 17:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The article has a healthy collection of reputable sources in its bibliography. It makes frequent citations to the sources, and does not look to possess any instances of original research. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! ( talk) 17:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The article seems to cover all relevant aspects of the topic for which reliable information is readily available. No incorporation of trivia. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! ( talk) 17:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The article does not appear to hold any form of bias regarding its topic. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! ( talk) 17:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The most recent edits in the revision history go back to 2007, and do not indicate that in any time since then any edit warring has taken place, so I'd say we're in the clear, here. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! ( talk) 16:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Both images used in the article serve a relevant purpose, are appropriately licensed, and presented properly. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! ( talk) 16:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
After reading through the article and checking it against the GA criteria, I am confident that the criteria is satisfied. Congratulations! As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! ( talk) 17:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
HMS Euryalus (1901) 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: March 11, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
HMS Euryalus (1901) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from HMS Euryalus (1901) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 March 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The section "Live Bait Squadron" describes an engagement, and gives the day and the month when it took place, but not the year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.45.86 ( talk) 17:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Last sentence of paragraph 1 under Construction and service needs a citation. In the same section, the sentence that starts, "A month later Wemyss..." may be missing a word. It's interesting how the UK got some useful service out of an obsolete ship that was almost written off before the war began. B2=yes. Djmaschek ( talk) 02:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will ( talk · contribs) 04:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I made a few very minor tweaks to the text, mostly for grammar and flow. With that in mind, the article is very well written, and elegantly arranged, and complies with MoS policies. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! ( talk) 17:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The article has a healthy collection of reputable sources in its bibliography. It makes frequent citations to the sources, and does not look to possess any instances of original research. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! ( talk) 17:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The article seems to cover all relevant aspects of the topic for which reliable information is readily available. No incorporation of trivia. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! ( talk) 17:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The article does not appear to hold any form of bias regarding its topic. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! ( talk) 17:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The most recent edits in the revision history go back to 2007, and do not indicate that in any time since then any edit warring has taken place, so I'd say we're in the clear, here. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! ( talk) 16:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Both images used in the article serve a relevant purpose, are appropriately licensed, and presented properly. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! ( talk) 16:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
After reading through the article and checking it against the GA criteria, I am confident that the criteria is satisfied. Congratulations! As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! ( talk) 17:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)