Talk:HMS Lively (1813)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 03:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 04:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article and a cursory glance shows it is likely to be close to meeting the Good Article criteria already. I will start a full review shortly. simongraham (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Overall, the standard of the article is good.
• It is of reasonable length, with 1,388 words of readable prose.
• The lead is reasonable with a length of 195 words. Suggest combining the three paragraphs, especially the short final one, into one to ease reading on mobile devices.
• Authorship is 99.7% from the nominator.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article.
• Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT to the image for accessibility.

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • Suggest putting commas around the subclauses "after the failure of the revolt", "with construction underway" and "where John and his court visited the ship and participated in a grand fête on board".
   • Please review "This with the strategy of the previous war which had seen a much more sporadic choice of designs".
   • Consider "adoption by the Royal Navy" rather than "adoption with the Royal Navy".
   • Please confirm it is "learned" rather than "learnt" in "Campbell learned that".

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • It seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included; the sources listed have all the information needed.
   • Is there a reason that the citations use sfnp rather than sfn?

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • Spot checks confirm Manning & Walker 1959, O'Byrne 1849 and Winfield 2008. AGF for offline resources that I do not have access to.

   it contains no original research;

   • All relevant statements have inline citations.
   • Marshall 1825 states that Elliot was given the insignia of a Knight Commander of the Order of the Tower and Sword. Is that the same as being appointed a knight?

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 1% chance of copyright violation, which is reported as "violation unlikely". The highest correlation is Encyclopedia Britannica and is non-significant,

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • The article covers the main aspects of the vessel's specification and service.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The article is balanced in its level of detail.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The article seems generally balanced, using both historical and more recent sources.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • The images have appropriate CC or PD tags.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • The images are appropriate, including a nice inbox illustration.

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)