Talk:USS Constellation vs La Vengeance/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   This is awkward The American frigate waited to return fire, instead gaining the weather gage before and firing a double shotted broadside into the port side of la Vengeance's hull.

   I think ive fixed this.XavierGreen (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Link or define double-shotted. Can't say that I'd call the American butcher's bill of 39 dead and wounded heavy, especially not in comparison to the French losses.

   I've linked double shotted. In terms of casualties this was the bloodiest engagement in terms of casualties suffered by the US navy during the entire conflict, most engagments American forces suffered only a handful of casualties.XavierGreen (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox says 14 dead, but the last section says 15. Which is correct?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

My bad, twas 14. Ive fixed it in the text.XavierGreen (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

2. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

3. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

4. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: