Talk:Battle of Nazareth/GA1

Latest comment: 11 years ago by RoslynSKP in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 00:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC) This review will commence in a bit. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot for taking it on. --Rskp (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Lead

edit

Great, and very explanatory. A pass here.

Infobox

edit

This is good. Passes.

Background

edit

Both half sections look fine, as the reference at the end is consummate for the entire section.

Deployment

edit

This section is also good. I have good feelings about this article!

Desert Mounted Corps objectives

edit

Concise, and sufficient.

Esdraelon Plain

edit

This section also passes!

Prelude

edit

This mini-section looks good. I will continue tomorrow; so far, so excellent! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Desert Mounted Corps advance

edit

Sets an expository stage for the next few sections; it passes.

5th Cavalry Division

edit

Good section.

Approach to Nazareth

edit

When you say "negotiated" the path, does that mean the subjects repaired or secured the passageway?
Everything else good.

Thanks. Have clarified this. --Rskp (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Desert Mounted Corps plans

edit

Solid section here.

Battle

edit

How could the 18th Lancers have mistaken a little village for Nazareth, albeit Nazareth is a village itself. If you can, elaborate there.
Everything else is good.

Sorry there is nothing more. It does sound like a lame excuse. --Rskp (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Nazareth

edit

"As they continuing their attack..." As they were continuing their attack...
Everything else, very good.

Done. --Rskp (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Aftermath

edit

I was just about to ask about the dearth of German/Ottoman accounts, but the first note expounded why this is the case. Anyway, a very nice section here.

Conclusion

edit

This is one of the best articles I have reviewed, and in consequence one of the most engaging reviews. I truly did scrutinize the article and found just these few issues. When they are ameliorated, I can pass the article. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot for your time and interest. Your comments are much appreciated. --Rskp (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply