Talk:Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 09:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals one error:
  • Herington_131 (Multiple references are using the same name)
    • Fixed
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3].
• Linkrot: External links check out [4] (no action required).
• Alt text: image lacks alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks (on Long 1973) reveal no issues [6] (no action required).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • "...but its crew survived and were evacuated back to the UK", perhaps more simply "but its crew survived and were evacuated to the UK..." (very minor point - suggestion only).
    • Done
• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

  • All major points are refenced to reliable sources.
  • Citations use a consistent style.
  • No issues with OR.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • All major aspects appear to have been covered.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • Looks fine IMO.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

  • No issues. Images are all PD and appropriate for the article.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • This is an excellent article IMO. One citation error and a minor prose suggestion; however, nothing to prevent its promotion. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot for the careful review. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)