Talk:William Phips/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 07:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Put a space between pages in cites 78, 96 Done  Magic ♪piano 13:21, 6 December 2011 (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:
 * Link ship's captain, Increase Mather, bullion, doubloon, shipyard. Were Rose of Algiers and James and Mary royal ships? If so, redlink them.
 * First reference to Increase Mather is already linked (2nd para of military expeditions); other terms linked. James and Mary was apparently purchased by the investors; no source I've seen describes Rose of Algiers as a Royal Navy ship.  Magic ♪piano 13:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * 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) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Let me know if more is needed.  Magic ♪piano 13:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)