Talk:Capture of the Caen canal and Orne river bridges/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	A few awkward phrases, "underneath, the controls being housed..." needs editing. sb "underneath. The controls were housed..." "Also able to open by pivoting..." "Between 160 and 240 feet... the river... " The noun should be placed before the modifying adjectives. "... in the event of their being attacked..." sb "if they were attacked." "although they did claim one of the bridges destroyed by a direct hit" sb "although they destroyed one bridge with a direct hit." "On the 5 September..." "the original then being being put display at..." I'm sure you can see a pattern.  Done Couple more minor issues that confuse me: The Germans "...had more success reaching the beaches between the British Sword Beach and the Canadian Juno Beach. At 13:30 the men at the bridges heard the sound of bagpipes..." If the Germans had success, what happened? The switch to Bill Millin playing his pipes leaves the reader hanging. The German attack in the west is background and I believe any more content would be off track as its nothing to do with the capture and defence of the bridges. Started a new paragraph at 13:30 whic may make easier reading.Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC) "...in the face of intense anti-aircraft fire the attack failed, although they did claim one of the bridges was destroyed." Was the attadck a failure or was the bridge actually destroyed? or both? The attack failed reworded Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC) a map would really help readers understand the strategic importance of the bridges. How about this one? — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 18:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Added one from commons Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
	2. Verifiable with no original research: Available digital sources are valid.
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All images check out.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage: Generally stays on topic.
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Good use of contemporary and modern images.
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	All good, well done!

,

• All text suggestion carried out Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)