Talk:HMS Monmouth (1901)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Monmouth (1901)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 03:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well-written:

A few minor grammatical fixes, and the article checks out in terms of prose, structure and style. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 21:40, 16 March 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

Verifiable with no original research:

The article is well-cited and gives no indication that any original research has been incorporated. It also hosts a comfortably-sized bibliography of reputable published sources. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 07:35, 15 March 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

Broad in its coverage:

The article covers all information of a relevant nature for encyclopedic inclusion. Nothing is overly buttered or otherwise padded unnecessarily. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 07:34, 15 March 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)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article takes a consistently fair tone with regards to its subject. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

An immediate look at the revision history shows that the article has been free of edit warring for at least about six years. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The sole image used in the article serves a relevant illustrative purpose, namely in the infobox, and is validly licensed. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 03:38, 12 March 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

Comments

• In the last two paragraphs of the section "Battle of Coronel", there are a number of references to a "he", the identity of whom did not strike me as clear. Specifically, the excerpts: "He broke contact with the German squadron at 20:05 and discovered Monmouth...", "The German cruiser closed to within 600 yards (550 m) and illuminated her flag with his spotlight...", and "The German ship then fired a torpedo which missed and turned off his searchlight". Are German vessels sometimes referred to as males instead of females, or are these instances meant to refer to any of the officers involved in the battle? As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• Good to go, in that case. Congratulations! :) As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)