Talk:Siege of Fort St. Jean/GA1

GA Review

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

Hello again! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Siege begins section, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence (He ordered Brown...) is a run-on sentence that needs to be split. Fixed

As both the Aftermath and Legacy sections are quite short, what would you think of combining them into an "Aftermath and legacy" section? Done
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Ref 35 (Wood) needs to be linked to be consistent with the rest of the refs. Fixed

In the References section, the Zuehlke ref needs to have authors listed last name first, to be consistent. Fixed

In the References section, the last ref (Ft. St. Jean website) needs a publisher. Fixed
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
There are a few prose and reference issues that need to be addressed, so I am placing this review on hold for now. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Dana boomer (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed your concerns. (I also realized I hadn't actually added the Lanctot reference, even though there were citations pointing to it. Bad MP...) Let me know if anything else crops up. Magic♪piano 14:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good, so I'm passing this article to GA status. Nice work, and thanks for the prompt response! Dana boomer (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]