Jump to content

Talk:Action of 9 September 1796/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 11:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Decent work there like normal, but I have a few comments.

Thanks for this review. I have some questions. Also, has this passed? The last line seems to suggest you passed it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  • Fix dashes using the script
  • CharInsert. It is on by default. You can turn it on in your preferences
  • It is unecessary to cites like this The M4 Sherman served in WWII.[1] It later served in the Korean War.[1]
*Space between the "p" and number in the cites
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  • You only need one kind of identifier for the references, not two.
  • It means that you don't need both oclcs and isbns for your refs.
  • Please and oclcs or isbns for two of the sources
  • OCLC numbers are found on www.worldcat.org. There are used for identifing refs that were mad before isbns were invented.
  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:
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  5. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  1. ^ a b Zaloga, p. 20.