Talk:Action of 18 June 1793/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- Need place of publication for references
- Done (all London)--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Need place of publication for references
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- There's no setup for the weakened mainmast before this: exerting significant pressure on the weakened mainmast before the jib boom eventually snapped off
- Rephrased.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- There's no setup for the weakened mainmast before this: exerting significant pressure on the weakened mainmast before the jib boom eventually snapped off
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- Thanks very much for the review, I think your concerns have all been addressed now. Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)