Talk:Battle of Port Louis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 11:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	DAB link to John Osborn
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	A lot Harv errors in the refs ~~Standardize your form of refs, sfns or ref tags,~~ I don't know what these mean? Can you link to a page explaining the problem?--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] Fix the Harv errors by removed the original date of publications in the cites.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Thanks for the review. I'll be away for a few days, have to come back to this when I return--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] Anyways, I have fixed the last two issues for you. BTW, this is passing. Good luck on improving this article further.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]