Talk:Battle of Elephant Point/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Skinny87 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (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)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    • Is there are reason that the operation code names are bolded in the Background section?
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  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:  

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)Reply

Hey, thanks! I usually bold operation names so that they're seen more clearly. Skinny87 (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply