Talk:Siege of Yorktown/GA1

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

Hi! I'll be doing the GA review of this article, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * For an article of this length, the lead should be two to three paragraphs, each about the length of the current one.
 * Please try to wikilink some more of the less common terms. For example, just in the Initial Movements section, link things like "Hessian Jaegers", "redoubt", "parallel", "sappers", etc.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I've added fact tags in three places where I'd like to see references added.
 * Please transfer the Reeves reference into the same split ref format that you are using for all other books.
 * Please add ISBN's where possible to the other book refs.
 * 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.:
 * Other than fairly persistant vandalism, this article appears stable. If the vandalism continues, you may want to request protection from IP edits.
 * 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:
 * Overall a very nice article. I have a few comments on MOS and references, so I am putting this review on hold for now.  Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost there. Most of the changes you've made so far look good. But you're going to think I'm really picky...  IMO, you went a bit overboard on expanding the lead :) When I said two to three paragraphs, I meant up to three paragraphs, not at least three paragraphs.  As it is now, the article is seriously top-heavy.  Would you mind trimming it back a bit.  Please and thank you... :) Dana boomer (talk)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall a very nice article. I have a few comments on MOS and references, so I am putting this review on hold for now.  Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost there. Most of the changes you've made so far look good. But you're going to think I'm really picky...  IMO, you went a bit overboard on expanding the lead :) When I said two to three paragraphs, I meant up to three paragraphs, not at least three paragraphs.  As it is now, the article is seriously top-heavy.  Would you mind trimming it back a bit.  Please and thank you... :) Dana boomer (talk)


 * Alrighy, I trimmed the lead. -556 I believe my watchlist says. Anything else?-Kieran4 (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, looks much better. Everything else looks good, so I'm going to pass this article to GA status.  Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much!-Kieran4 (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)