Talk:HMS Dainty (H53)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

A solid article on a Royal Navy ship; no issues identified in this review.

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

Meets GA standards.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Yes.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

Yes

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

Yes.

(c) it contains no original research.

None apparent.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

Yes

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

Yes

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Yes

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

Yes

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

Yes

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

Yes