Talk:Siege of Vicksburg/GA1

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

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Specific concerns
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Lead could be a bit bigger
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * one paragraph could use a citation
 * 1) 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:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A bit more in the lead might be nice. I'd really expect a two paragraph lead for an article of this size and importance. A trick I find helpful is to put in at least one sentence from each large paragraph in the article. So I'd expect two sentences in the lead dealing with the background, one or two from opposing forces, four or five for the assaults, three for siege, one for command changes, one for crater, one for surrender, one for legacy.
 * Sixth paragraph of Siege needs a citation.
 * Otherwise a very nice article. Have you ever been to the battlefield? I have, and it really brings home to you how ... impressive the defensive lines were. (I have ancestors who fought on both sides at Vicksburg).
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)