Talk:Operation Fustian/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

GAN on hold

I have reviewed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria and have placed the article on hold until the following issues are addressed. As you address each issue, state how you addressed it (if necessary). If you disagree with a particular issue, state your rationale for doing so after the issue in question so a compromise can be reached.

1. Per WP:LEAD, the length of the lead shouldn't exceed four paragraphs. Either condense the details and/or incorporate one paragraph into another. Done
2. In the infobox, can the casualties and losses be included? Done
3. "The intention was for the parachute brigade, with glider-borne forces in support, to be landed on both..." "to land" seems simpler. Done
4. "The operation was a disaster." Although this may be the case, maybe go with something such as "The operation encountered multiple obstacles and met heavy opposition." (especially since they did end up capturing the bridge, the objective of the operation). Done
5. "...found it hard going to reach...". Consider rewording "hard going". Done
6. Not required for the review, but the free images should be moved to Commons so that the other language Wikipedias have access to them.
7. Many of the captions for the images indicate general overviews of what's in the image. Try and expand the caption to better tie it into the article (for example, "A pair of C-47 Dakotas, similar to the 105 C-47s used in the operation." Make sure to clarify for the image of the paratroopers preparing to board a plane is actually related to this operation or if it is just a general image. Done
8. "...two Allied airborne divisions would carry out airborne operations." Seems a bit redundant, try combining with the next sentence. Done
9. Is there any particular reason the drop zones are listed out of order? It goes from two, then four, and finally three. Ha, no never noticed that before now changed to 1st,2nd and 3rd Battalions which is also in the order of 1-4.  Done
10. "...daily temperature most of the time reaching 100 degrees Fahrenheit..." This could use a conversion.  Done
11. "The Primosole bridge is built..." Capitalize bridge.  Done
12. For the paragraphs in the "Fustian" section, numbers only need to be spelled out if less than ten. Go through the article and fix any other occurrences.
13. Is the bridge still standing? If so, is there a current image of the bridge available? No it has been knocked down and replaced by a new different style of bridge further up river.
14. Are there any relevant external links that can be included? two added  Done
15. Again, not required for GA, but it would be helpful if the geocoordinates could be added.

Altogether, this article is very well-written and abundant in sourcing. If you have any questions on the above issues, please let me know. I have left the article on hold for seven days for the issues to be addressed. If they are fixed in this time, I will pass the article. If not, the article may be failed and can be renominated at WP:GAN. If necessary to address the above issues, and progress is being made, an extension may be provided. If you have any questions or when you are done, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review all done I believe Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

GA passed

Good job addressing the above issues so quickly. I went through the article and made several fixes, please review my edits for errors. I would recommend removing File:Parachute school North Africa.jpg and replacing it with something else. It shows a parachute school a month after this battle and doesn't seem relevant. I believe the article meets the GA criteria and have passed the article. Continue to maintain the article to ensure it upholds its GA status.

Also, to anyone that is reading this review, please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the very large backlog. Instructions can be found here. Each new reviewer that helps to review articles will help to reduce the time that articles wait to be reviewed. If you are new to reviewing and want to familiarize yourself with the process, study the GA criteria, look at other editors' reviews, and leave any questions you have at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations if you need feedback while performing a review.

Keep up the good work, and I encourage you to continue to bring articles up to good article status. If anyone disagrees with this review, an alternate opinion can be sought at Good article reassessment. If you have any further questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)