# Talk:HMS Munster

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Munster/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jack4576 (talk · contribs) 13:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 
The prose, spelling, and grammar are all up to a high standard.

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
The lead section provides a good summary of the topic, the layout is clear and organized, the word choice is appropriate and not fiction-based, and no lists are present that would disrupt the flow of the article.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 
The article is well-referenced throughout.

b. (citations to reliable sources): 
The citations link to reliable sources, such as well-respected books and official records.

c. (OR): 
There doesn't seem to be any original research; all information is supported by citations.

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 
There is no evidence of copyright violation or plagiarism.

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 
The article covers all major aspects of the subject, including its construction, deployments, and eventual decommission.

b. (focused): 
The article remains focused on the subject throughout.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
The article appears to be written from a neutral point of view, without favoring any particular perspective.

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
There is no evidence of any edit wars or major disputes over the content.

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 
Images are used appropriately

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
as above

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)