Talk:Battle of Borgerhout/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 23:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well-written Symbol support vote.svg

a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct ✔️

b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation ✔️
 * The article contained quite a few, but nevertheless minor, errors like MOS:DATEFORMAT, all of which I have fixed as I read through the article.


 * Verifiable with no original research Symbol support vote.svg

a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline ✔️

b. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines ✔️

c. It contains no original research ✔️
 * Broad in its coverage Symbol support vote.svg

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic ✔️

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail ✔️
 * Neutral Symbol support vote.svg

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each ✔️
 * Stable Symbol support vote.svg

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute ✔️ a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content ✔️
 * Illustrated Symbol support vote.svg

b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions ✔️


 * Pass, fail or hold? Symbol support vote.svg
 * With the article meeting the GA-criteria I'm going to pass it. Good job people. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)