Talk:Multi-scale camouflage/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 11:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Will get to this shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead;
  • with work by U.S. Army officer Timothy O'Neill; rank of Neill please

Done.

• • CADPAT; mention the full abbreviation on the first mention

Done.

• • MARPAT; mention the full abbreviation on the first mention

Done.

• Section 1;
  • does may not see the pattern optimally

Used 'will', there's no doubt about it as the pattern will be the wrong scale for their distance.

• • and they do so extremely effectively; remove this, not clear POV

Repeated ref for clarity, added quote in ref, it's reliably cited.

• • fractal Vegetato pattern; here fractal is dup-linked

Removed.

• • 2003–4 -> 2003–2004; per MOS:DATERANGE
• Section 2;
  • small (2 inch) squares; use {{convert}} for 2 inch

Done.

• • Dup-links in section 2.5; Flecktarn, CADPAT, MARPAT, patterns in nature

Removed.

• After the section 2.5, I suggest to use {{clear}} so that the following sections do not club with the former.

Done.

• 0% confidence, good work.

Thanks.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I've addressed all comments to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

---

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:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)