Jump to content

Talk:Siege of Savage's Old Fields

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSiege of Savage's Old Fields has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 6, 2012Good article nomineeListed

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Savage's Old Fields/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 17:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
    B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Provides references to all sources:
    B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    Off line sources AGF
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Main aspects are addressed:
    Provides the historical setting
    B. Remains focused:
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
  • Great article. I made a few edits which you are free to revert.[1] (Both by British and English spell checker spell "backcountry" as back country, so I changed it throughout the article.) I added some links for my own benefit so I could understand.

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Your edits look fine. Magic♪piano 01:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]