Talk:British Army/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FriyMan (talk · contribs) 19:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I will take the responsibility of reviewing this article according to GA criteria and make minor changes, if necessary. FriyMan (talk 19:59, 15 March 2017 (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.	This is a well written article with no typos.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	This table just doesn't work out. Please make it vertical.
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.	No issues here.
	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).	20 dead links! Yikes!
	2c. it contains no original research.	There is no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Everything is good here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	History section needs to be updated. Latest news are from 2007.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The Formation and structure section is too long and is basically a list of British army forces.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Probably the easiest criteria to pass.
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.	Nothing to say here.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a nice article, but it needs improvement. Please see the issues described above and try to fix them. You are welcome to re-nominate the article for GA, when the issues are resolved.