Talk:Honoré Théodore Maxime Gazan de la Peyrière/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * there is no where, but I added the publisher and the wikisource link.
 * Capitalize the titles of Shadwell and Alison and we'll be done here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * thanks for review. As always, your comments are appreciated. I think this will cover the issues you've raised.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Watch your accents. I think that I've caught all of them, but double-check Masséna, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to let the capitalization issues fail this article, especially since they're not listed as GA-level criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)