Talk:HMS Euryalus (1901)
 | 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
.svg)
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)
Comment
editLast 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)
- I've added the missing cite. The RN had a need for a lot of cruisers for convoy escort and other second-line duties that didn't require modern ships. If the Cressy-class ships had been in the German Navy, they'd have been relegated to harbor duties by 1916 as they just weren't fast enough for a fleet action.
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Euryalus (1901)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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)
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation
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)
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
- (b) 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)
- (c) it contains no original research
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)
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)
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)
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
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)