Talk:Action of 10 February 1809/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

GA review of this version: Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Suggestion for future improvements (won't affect GA assessment): Add the locations to the works in the "References" section
 * Done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * In the lead, P2, S2: the word superior could easily be taken as POV; perhaps it could be changed to something like "numerically superior" or something else that conveys the same idea without the potential baggage of the current word.
 * I did indeed mean numerically superior, changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I did indeed mean numerically superior, changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * No images
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Really just the one issue with the word superior; I see no reason why this won't pass when that is resolved. Great job on the article! — Bellhalla (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the review, much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)