Talk:HMS Vigilant (1777)

HMS Vigilant (1777) 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 25, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Military history: Maritime / British / European / Early Modern / American Revolution

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	American Revolutionary War task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal HMS Vigilant (1777) is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Vigilant (1777)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 12:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Hi,[reply]

Will do in the next day or two. Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

review

Really very good, with everything in place. Well written. Just a few nitpicks:

"and she had a beam of 36 ft (11.0 m)" why not "with a bean of 36 ft ..." - "had" makes it sound her bean length changed, whereas the article doesn't clarify if measurement errors accounted for the difference.

"She was then survey" > surveyed?

"sometime during the year" > that year?

That's all for now. Well done!

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestions, all done. Thanks for the review.

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Provides references to all sources:

B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed:

B. Remains focused:
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]