Talk:Mark E. Mitchell/GA1

Latest comment: 7 years ago by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 10:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply


Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Lead;
    • Expand lead to at least two paragraphs
  • Section 1;
    • Date of birth?
    • Marquette University ('87) -> Marquette University (batch of 1987); the style used may not be understandable to some readers
    • he received Marquette University's Alumni Professional Achievement Award; for what?
    • Mitchell is married, and has several daughters; several is too awkward. better to find the count
    • many details were missing including his DOB, his schooling, childhood, where did he undergo his pre-commissioning training, when he was commissioned
  • Section 2;
    • Mitchell began his career assigned to the 24th Infantry Division at Fort Gordon; when?
    • Having served during the Persian Gulf War; In which year, the gulf war has two phases, in 1990 or 1991 or both?
    • Entering Afghanistan via helicopter, travelling on horse back; unnecessary and awkward details
    • responded to Mazar-e-Sharif?
    • Who is John Walker Lindh? basic context required
    • he deployed to Iraq -> he was deployed to Iraq
    • Who is Mohammad Fazl? basic context required
    • From 2003 to 2009, Mitchell deployed to Iraq at least once a year; something about his action
    • the capabilities he had taught? What capabilities
    • Mitchell accepted steel? What do you mean by that
  • Section 2.1 and 2.1.1 are over lapping each other, better use {{clear}}
  • 76% confidence, violation possible, but this is due to the citation, no worries.
I think this hardly meets Ga criteria, many basic details are missing. Also there are a lot of issues with the prose. It is OK if you could bring in the concerned content as said above, else I would have to fail the article. Perhaps, a peer review would do before you renominate. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    I am closing this nomination as fail. There is no response from the editor and hardly meets GA criteria. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Reply