Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Barrosa

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Battle of Barrosa

This article has gone from stub rating to B-class, and following a very constructive peer review, I think it's now ready for at least A-class. I've currently got the article nominated at GA, and also in WP:LoCE to sort out any remaining prose/grammar/punctuation problems. I want to take this to FA, so as well as the A-class review, I'm interested in hearing opinions on chances at reaching FA, and suggestions on improvements to enable me to take it that far. Thanks. Carre 16:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support - It is well-referenced, proper-written, it contains good images and maps, so i'm suporting it! --Eurocopter tigre 18:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support — Reworded one sentence in the lede, but other than that, it looks good. JKBrooks85 19:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you - I like your new words :) Carre 19:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support - I peer reviewed this earlier and said it was A-class then and it still is.--Jackyd101 14:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support Several subsections in the Battle section have few if any links to articles here in Wikipedia, could you maybe see about putting some links in there? Otherwise it looks good. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  Generally, I tried to observe what I thought was standard practice - wikilinking relevant words on their first occurrence only, and not linking them subsequently. I shall have a look to see if there are any I've missed, that a reader may like to click to learn more. Thanks for the punctuation & grammar correction too - more improvements like that always appreciated. Carre 10:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  Y Done - mainly wikilinked military terms (column, line, square, squadron, hussars, dragoons). There are still some unlinked sections, but I couldn't really see much more that wasn't either linked earlier, or that would need further explanation. If anyone does, on reading it, think "ohh, wonder what that means?", please feel free to wikilink. Cheers. Carre 10:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support Looks good, i can't see any problems with MOS, referenced immaculately. Great article. Woodym555 14:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.