Talk:Battle of Nazareth/GA1
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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)
- Thanks a lot for taking it on. --Rskp (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Lead
editGreat, and very explanatory. A pass here.
Infobox
editThis is good. Passes.
Background
editBoth half sections look fine, as the reference at the end is consummate for the entire section.
Deployment
editThis section is also good. I have good feelings about this article!
Desert Mounted Corps objectives
editConcise, and sufficient.
Esdraelon Plain
editThis section also passes!
Prelude
editThis mini-section looks good. I will continue tomorrow; so far, so excellent! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Desert Mounted Corps advance
editSets an expository stage for the next few sections; it passes.
5th Cavalry Division
editGood section.
Approach to Nazareth
editWhen 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)
Desert Mounted Corps plans
editSolid section here.
Battle
editHow 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)
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)
Aftermath
editI 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
editThis 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)
- Thanks a lot for your time and interest. Your comments are much appreciated. --Rskp (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)