Talk:Battle of Ampfing (1800)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs) 21:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	You use the abbreviation FZM without introducing it. Is it Feldzeugmeister?Y
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Check disambiguations on Steinheim and Höchstädt Y I think these are okay now. I added a Battle of Ampfing disambiguation page on the top, please check if this is correct Y Check overlinking of Munich (lead), Lake Constance, Napoleon Bonaparte, Jean Victor Marie Moreau, Pál Kray, Claude Lecourbe, Stockach, Dillingen, Feldzeugmeister, Ulm, Danube, Bavarians, Württembergers, General of Division, Jean Moreau, Ingolstadt and HohenlindenY Still overlinked Napoleon Bonaparte, Württembergers, General of Division (first occurrence in section "Background", move abbreviation here) I think i've got them all now. how do you find the dupe links? I've also removed the titles (General of Division, etc.) because divisional generals often commanded brigades, etc. Theya re just misleading, I think. auntieruth (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Regarding "Arnold, pp 205 & 213", is this an acceptable style? I am asking because I have only seen it done "Arnold, pp. 205, 213" Yes that would be okay I've added the period. Y
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Kudos MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)