Talk:HMS Amazon (1799)

HMS Amazon (1799) 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 7, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 10, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Edward Riou (pictured) sailed with Cook, survived his ship hitting an iceberg, but died by being nearly cut in two aboard HMS Amazon at Copenhagen?

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

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)

GA Review

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Amazon (1799)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
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
It is broad in its coverage.
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
It is 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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: Pass

Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Add topic