# Talk:Action of 10 February 1809

This review is transcluded from Talk:Action of 10 February 1809/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review of this version:Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Suggestion for future improvements (won't affect GA assessment): Add the locations to the works in the "References" section
Done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
In the lead, P2, S2: the word superior could easily be taken as POV; perhaps it could be changed to something like "numerically superior" or something else that conveys the same idea without the potential baggage of the current word.
I did indeed mean numerically superior, changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

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): 
No images
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Really just the one issue with the word superior; I see no reason why this won't pass when that is resolved. Great job on the article! — Bellhalla (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review, much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)