Talk:Battle of Cartagena de Indias/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll re-review over the weekend. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[2]

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I originally reviewed this article back in March. Since then, the various issues identified have been dealt with (retrospectively added on by Ttom1 to the original review page, so I won't repeat them here). I'm happy to pass it now second around. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)