Talk:HMS Jason (1800)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Jason (1800)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 16:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Review

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. Contains a short description which complies with recommendations.
4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation.
9. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
10. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
11. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
12. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
13. No original research.
14. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
15. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
16. Neutral.
17. Stable.
18. Illustrated, if possible.
19. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

I'll be happy to do this review. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Pickersgill-Cunliffe. Hope you are well. No need to beat about the bush with this one. It's excellent. An interesting piece of history that's very well written and easily passes this review. Well done and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)