Talk:Battle of Fréteval
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga in topic GA Review
![]() | Battle of Fréteval 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. Review: August 27, 2017. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Battle of Fréteval appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 July 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Fréteval/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 13:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Extremely sorry for the delay. Will complete this soon. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Lead and infobox;
- Please add an infobox to the article to increase the readability, you may use: {{Infobox military conflict}}
- [1] applies.
- Fix the link syntax here: Philip Augustus, from a twelth-century French manuscript in the Bibliotheque Nationale
- Done, well spotted.
- Section 1;
- For over
a"an" year
- For over
- Negative.
- John had made Philip large grants from Richard's Duchy of Aquitaine; please rephrase to improve the readability
- Good catch, done.
- King Richard I of England; dup-link
- Well, per MOS:DUPLINK there's no harm in a repetition for the first occurance following the lede, and if you want to removed the duplink to Rich, you presumable also want to rm the same to Philip. Either way, I'm easy.
- Section 2;
- soaked through- 'a condition which delighted Richard'[18]- after; use mdash
- I agree it was a crappy sentence generally; If you don't mind, I've re-worded and tightened it.
- Section 3; all good
- 0% confidence, violation unlikely.
- Well-written, sorry for the delay. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail: