Talk:Siege of Yorktown/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi! I'll be doing the GA review of this article, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
- For an article of this length, the lead should be two to three paragraphs, each about the length of the current one.
- Please try to wikilink some more of the less common terms. For example, just in the Initial Movements section, link things like "Hessian Jaegers", "redoubt", "parallel", "sappers", etc.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- I've added fact tags in three places where I'd like to see references added.
- Please transfer the Reeves reference into the same split ref format that you are using for all other books.
- Please add ISBN's where possible to the other book refs.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- Other than fairly persistant vandalism, this article appears stable. If the vandalism continues, you may want to request protection from IP edits.
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Overall a very nice article. I have a few comments on MOS and references, so I am putting this review on hold for now. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Almost there. Most of the changes you've made so far look good. But you're going to think I'm really picky... IMO, you went a bit overboard on expanding the lead :) When I said two to three paragraphs, I meant up to three paragraphs, not at least three paragraphs. As it is now, the article is seriously top-heavy. Would you mind trimming it back a bit. Please and thank you... :) Dana boomer (talk)
- Overall a very nice article. I have a few comments on MOS and references, so I am putting this review on hold for now. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- Alrighy, I trimmed the lead. -556 I believe my watchlist says. Anything else?-Kieran4 (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yup, looks much better. Everything else looks good, so I'm going to pass this article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Alrighy, I trimmed the lead. -556 I believe my watchlist says. Anything else?-Kieran4 (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks very much!-Kieran4 (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)