Talk:Action of 10 February 1809

Action of 10 February 1809 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
May 4, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

Military history: Maritime / British / European / French / Napoleonic era

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
	French military history task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

GA Review

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Action of 10 February 1809/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review of this version:
Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Suggestion for future improvements (won't affect GA assessment): Add the locations to the works in the "References" section

Done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
In the lead, P2, S2: the word superior could easily be taken as POV; perhaps it could be changed to something like "numerically superior" or something else that conveys the same idea without the potential baggage of the current word.

I did indeed mean numerically superior, changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
No images
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Really just the one issue with the word superior; I see no reason why this won't pass when that is resolved. Great job on the article! — Bellhalla (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much for the review, much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Add topic