Talk:Carl Gustav Rehnskiöld/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Some minor points - see below
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Some minor points - see below
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Looks pretty good
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Looks pretty good
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Looks pretty good


 * References required
 * 1) Second paragraph of Prisoner of war (1709–1718)
 * 2) Reference required for the Promotions Box
 * 3) Reference required for Note d
 * Spelling
 * 1) "councilor" should be "councillor"
 * 2) "paitning" should be "painting"
 * 3) "Saxon-Russian amy" should be "army"
 * 4) "Quartermaster general" should be "Quartermaster General"
 * 5) "reconnoiters" should be "reconnaissance"
 * 6) "mid July" should be "mid-July"
 * Putting article on hold.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review Hawkeye7 ! I have now fixed the spelling errors and added new references.Alexander Alejandro (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)