Talk:Warfare in early modern Scotland
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Sabrebd in topic GA Review
 | Warfare in early modern Scotland 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. Review: August 10, 2015. (Reviewed version). |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Warfare in early modern Scotland article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Warfare in early modern Scotland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 11:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll be adding more comments as the review goes on.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking this on. I will probably try to implement suggestions over the weekend as I am away the following week and may not have easy internet access.--SabreBD (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
|
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
|
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
|
|
2b. 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). | |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | |
I think I have done everything suggested in the review. Unfortunately, I may not have much interest access from tomorrow.--SabreBD (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am back. Is this review complete yet, or will more points be added?--SabreBD (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- No more comments.Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Anyways I have fixed the rest, so passing.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing those last two things and all the other work. I wouldn't have gotten around that until tomorrow.--SabreBD (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Anyways I have fixed the rest, so passing.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- No more comments.Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)