Talk:USS Chesapeake (1799)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

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):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Excellent work, Brad. I had read this the other day, and was planning on passing it then, but real life intervened :) One thing to point out: the images need alt text per WP:ALT (it's a fairly new requirement). Oh, and would Twelve-pound cannon be a useful link? Good luck if you plan on taking this to A-class review or FAC. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've only recently learned of this alt text and will add it in. Eventually the article will work up to FA but I've just found more information and discrepancies to add. 12 pound cannon would work better if there was actually a naval cannon shown. --Brad (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]