Talk:Mark E. Mitchell/GA1
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 10:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- 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)
- Pass/Fail: