Talk:Battle of Camperdown/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 14:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(beginning review)

Comments This is a very thorough article, well writing and well sourced. I did some minor copy editing which you are free to revert. I have some formatting questions:

• Why don't the "notes" work like the footnotes i.e. if I click on a "note" I can't click back to where I was. I am stuck in the "notes" section and have to figure out where I was.

I hadn't noticed that - I've got no idea why that is happening. Do you know where I'd find out?

• There is one quotation at the end which is centred, but the reference is not centred with the quote, but is off to the left side.

Done Actually, I don't know how to do this - what do I still need to do?

• Would you consider making the images larger. They break up some big blocks of text and they gives some visual clues to the article?

I can make the images larger, although in fact current instructions are that images should not be sized but that this should be left to each user's browser specifications.

Xtzou (Talk) 19:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, some replies above.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Reply. Regarding the "notes", perhaps you can figure it out from Gustav Mahler, where it works correctly. Regards, the off centre quote, I unsuccessfully fiddled with it; I'll see if I can figure it out, but I'm not good at that. Regarding the pictures, I think they do recommend thumb (which is supposed to be 240px), but I've also seen requests by FAC editors for bigger images, so it's up to you as I don't know the final word. I guess it's a question of editorial judgement. Xtzou (Talk) 21:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Addendum. For note 1 in Gustav Mahler, the editor uses <ref name= Sadie507/>|group= n}}, so maybe "group= n" is "notes". Xtzou (Talk) 21:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I am passing this article because none of the above have to do with the GA criteria. It is excellently written with clear prose and good referencing and certainly warrants a GA designation.

Thankyou very much. I have sorted out the notes problem now, and will continue to work on the others. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused: }

4. Is it neutral?

   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: Pass!

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 16:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)