Talk:Action of 10 February 1809/GA1
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Jackyd101 in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review of this version:
Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- 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
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- 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.
- Fair representation without bias:
- I did indeed mean numerically superior, changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- 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)
- Thanks very much for the review, much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)