Talk:Action of 9 November 1822/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 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):
 * 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:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
--Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Buccaneer is slightly different from pirate can I suggest you stay with pirate
 * 2) despite the lack of wind, using its sweeps - are sweeps oars clarification required for us non nautical types
 * 1) I believe i have fixed both these issues.XavierGreen (talk) 07:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Passed GA a tidy little article. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)