Talk:Siege of Fort St. Jean/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. 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)
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)
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)