Talk:HMS Euryalus (1901)/GA1

GA Review
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)
 * (b)

: 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)
 * (b)
 * (c)

: 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)
 * (b)

. 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)
 * (b)

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)