Talk:Operation Biting/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I have elected to review this article under the Good Article criteria and should have my initial comments posted within the next few hours. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have completed reviewing this article under the criteria, and am placing it on hold until my few concerns below are addressed. However, this is a very good article and very close to passing. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   "technology it possessed be studied and, if possible, actually extracted and taken back to Britain" - I don't think the inclusion of "actually" is really necessary.

   "After the end of the Battle of France and the subsequent fall of France and the evacuation of British troops from Dunkirk during Operation Dynamo" - this segment of the sentence just doesn't read well.

   "a villa approximately 100 yards (300 ft)" - wouldn't it be more appropiate to have the conversion in meters, not yards? Same here: "grounded 60 yards (180 ft) offshore".

   "The beach was not mined" - it should probably be clarified what type of mine it is refering to here, as in the bomb type mine and not a coal mine or what have you.

   "each named after a famous Royal Navy admiral: Nelson, Jellicoe, Hardy, Drake and Rodney." - not necessary, but perhaps add wikilinks to the admirals.

   "a four day period between 24-27 February" - an ndash is required here.

   Both "Flight-Sergeant" and "Flight Sergeant" are included within the text. They should be constiant, so either have them all with the hyphen or none at all.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The size of the British force needs to be referenced in the infobox.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Just one comment here: perhaps consider mentioning the gallantry decorations awarded for the raid in the "Aftermath" section. For instance, I know that Frost was awarded the Military Cross for his actions during the raid, and Pickard a bar to his Distinguished Service Order. This is not required, just simply a suggestion.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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:

Everything should be done now, (the British force numbers were already in the infobox) apart from the conversion templates; those were the distances given in the books I consulted and I'd rather not change them. But if it's a problem I will. Skinny87 (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good! My only point with the measurements was that there were two imperials distances, and it would be better with both an imperial and a metric measurement, however I do not think this is a terribly importaint issue so it will suffice as it is. Well, I am satisified that this safely meets the criteria, and as such I am passing it. Congratulations! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)