Talk:Battle of Hill 70/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Mattisse in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing your article for GA. I took the liberty and did some minor copy editing. I added p. and pp. to the references, changed the date format to be consistency dmy, delinked the dates per Date overlinking, broke up one large paragraph into two and a few small things like that. This is a well written article. I only have a few comments to help it become GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Comments
  • Did not understand this: "in preventing local German formations from transferring and aiding..." - transferring what?
I have clarified that it was intent of preventing the transfer of men and resources
  • Also, per WP:LEAD, the lead needs to be long so as to include more of the article.

Otherwise, the article looks great to me.

Expanded

Mattisse (Talk) 03:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Final GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Well written  b (MoS): Follows MoS  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Well referenced   b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable   c (OR): No OR  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Sets the context   b (focused): Remains focused on subject  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: NPOV  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
  6. 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):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Article passes GA. Very nicely done. Congradulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 20:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply