 | HMS Zubian 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: June 10, 2014. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from HMS Zubian appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 June 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)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Zubian/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 02:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The article looks to comply with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 04:23, 10 June 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 uses a very many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. Nothing resembles original research. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 04:22, 10 June 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 the aspects of the subject for which reliable encyclopedic information is available. Nothing trivial incorporated. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 04:20, 10 June 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)
No signs of bias towards/against the subject or any topic even briefly covered in the article. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The revision history shows no indication of any edit warring taking place on this article - certainly not in the past four years. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Both images used in the article serve a relevant illustrative purpose, and are properly licensed. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 04:08, 10 June 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 reviewing this article, I am confident that it satisfies the GA criteria. Congratulations! :) Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks much for reviewing the article, and so quickly! Parsecboy (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)