Talk:Action of 10 February 1809/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. 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)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. 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)

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

2. 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

3. 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)

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