Talk:Battle of Hubbardton/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): This well written; prose style makes the article interesting. b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): The article is well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): The sources are reliable c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Covers all major aspects b (focused): Remains focused on subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Stable

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Very nice article. Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 20:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Magic♪piano 23:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge "Hubbardton Battlefield" into this article?

I believe Hubbardton Battlefield should be merged into this article. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)