Talk:Battle of Lissa (1811)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to leave comments. After the FAC director promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{ArticleHistory}} template when the FAC closes.

	Battle of Lissa (1811) has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 7, 2008 Good article nominee Listed June 12, 2008 WikiProject peer review Reviewed Current Status: Good article

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force French military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792–1815)

[edit] GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Lissa (1811)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. It's been looking for a Good Article review for some time, so although I feel that I might not be the best person to give it since I don't know much on this topic of history, I will give it anyways. In my opinion, the article passes because:

1. The prose is well written and the article complies with the Manual of Style.
2. It appears factually accurate and the references are verifiable.
3. It is broad in coverage.
4. It is neutral.
5. It is stable.
6. It is illustrated.

It's a very good article, and it makes Good Article status easily. JonCatalan (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much!--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)