Talk:Battle of Hubbardton/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): This well written; prose style makes the article interesting.
b (MoS): Follows MoS
- a (prose): This well written; prose style makes the article interesting.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): The article is well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): The sources are reliable c (OR):
- a (references): The article is well referenced
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): Covers all major aspects b (focused): Remains focused on subject
- a (major aspects): Covers all major aspects
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias: NPOV
- Fair representation without bias: NPOV
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.: Stable
- No edit wars etc.: Stable
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Very nice article. Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 20:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Merge "Hubbardton Battlefield" into this article?[edit]
I believe Hubbardton Battlefield should be merged into this article. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)