Talk:Battle of Camperdown/GA1

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

Reviewer: Xtzou ( Talk ) 14:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(beginning review)

Comments This is a very thorough article, well writing and well sourced. I did some minor copy editing which you are free to revert. I have some formatting questions:
 * Why don't the "notes" work like the footnotes i.e. if I click on a "note" I can't click back to where I was. I am stuck in the "notes" section and have to figure out where I was.
 * I hadn't noticed that - I've got no idea why that is happening. Do you know where I'd find out?


 * There is one quotation at the end which is centred, but the reference is not centred with the quote, but is off to the left side.
 * Done Actually, I don't know how to do this - what do I still need to do?


 * Would you consider making the images larger. They break up some big blocks of text and they gives some visual clues to the article?
 * I can make the images larger, although in fact current instructions are that images should not be sized but that this should be left to each user's browser specifications.

Xtzou ( Talk ) 19:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, some replies above.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply. Regarding the "notes", perhaps you can figure it out from Gustav Mahler, where it works correctly. Regards, the off centre quote, I unsuccessfully fiddled with it; I'll see if I can figure it out, but I'm not good at that. Regarding the pictures, I think they do recommend thumb (which is supposed to be 240px), but I've also seen requests by FAC editors for bigger images, so it's up to you as I don't know the final word. I guess it's a question of  editorial judgement. Xtzou ( Talk ) 21:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum. For note 1 in Gustav Mahler, the editor uses |group= n}}, so maybe "group= n" is "notes". Xtzou ( Talk ) 21:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am passing this article because none of the above have to do with the GA criteria. It is excellently written with clear prose and good referencing and certainly warrants a GA designation.
 * Thankyou very much. I have sorted out the notes problem now, and will continue to work on the others. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

 GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Congratulations! Xtzou ( Talk ) 16:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused: }
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!