Talk:Battle of Elephant Point/GA1
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Skinny87 in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi! I'll be doing the GA review for this article, and I should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- Is there are reason that the operation code names are bolded in the Background section?
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
The article looks great, so I'm going to pass it to GA status. I had one minor question regarding formatting, but it's not enough to hold up the GA nomination over. Congrats and keep up the good work! Dana boomer (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks! I usually bold operation names so that they're seen more clearly. Skinny87 (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)