Talk:Siege of Porto Ferrajo/GA1

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

Reviewer: Thurgate (talk · contribs) 19:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * prose:  (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * 2) 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:
 * 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) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
1. by 1801. Suggest - By 1801

2. Kelly refusing to burn. Suggest - Kelly refused to burn

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow you to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns. Thurgate (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, all done--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Passed. Good job Jacky. Thurgate (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)