Talk:Liberation of Arnhem/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet

   1. My main issue with the article is the number of typos and punctation errors dispersed throughout. I recommend a Level 1 Copy-edit. You can do this yourself or have someone else look over the article closely to tidy it up.
   2. The lead should be expanded to summarize the entire article. See WP:LEAD.
   3. Is there any way a chart could be added to the Allied forces section? This would help show which units were subordinate to which corps. I understand that the German order of battle was convoluted so this is not neccessary for that section.
   4. Section Headers should not contain "The." Numbers in the subheads are also frowned upon.
   5. The "Losses" section is short enough that it can just be folded into the "Aftermath" section. At the same time, I would recommend the Aftermath section, which is also short, could be a subhead in the Battle section. This would help reduce the number of short headers in the article.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass Only one ref issue, which is below.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Not Yet

   1. "to the joy of the local population" - this is an opinion which is not neutral. It should be reworded and referenced specifically to make the article more even.
5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass No problems there.

7. Overall:

   On Hold until a few issues are resolved. —Ed!^(talk) 03:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, I've started working through it.

1. 1. I've found an embarrassing number of mistakes. Are there any other specific ones you can see?
   2. Done. Any good?
   3. An Order of Battle? Good idea, will get onto it.
   4. Done
   5. That can be done, but just thought I'd try the layout there at the moment. This way it allows 4 main headings - Background, Preperation, Battle and Aftermath. What do you think?

I've removed the local population bit as it didn't really fit into the slightly remodeled sentence.

Cheers! Ranger Steve (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, I don't see any other major problems with the article. It now meets the GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. Well done! —Ed!^(talk) 14:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)