Talk:Operation Lüttich/GA1

GA Review

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the last paragraph of the "Background" section, you say "could find barely a fraction of these numbers". What's "barely a fraction"? Do you have any specific numbers, or even a ballpark figure?

   I don't have the book where that ref was taken from, but I can check the rest of my sources to see whether I can find an approximation. Cam (Chat) 22:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • The last half sentence of the first paragraph of the "Offensive strategy" section needs a ref.

   Fixed. Cam (Chat) 22:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

   • The last sentence of the second paragraph of the "Allied Air-Strikes—the offensive stalls" section needs a ref.

   Fixed. Cam (Chat) 22:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • The lead image PD template appears to be broken (it is redlinked). This should probably be fixed, so there aren't questions about the copyright. I noticed you're the uploader, so thought you'd probably be able to fix it fairly easily :)

• Fixed. I know for a fact that is a US Image, but I'm more familiar with Anglo-Canadian copyright templates (as I tend to use them a lot more) Cam (Chat) 22:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

1. • The map image needs a caption. I realize there's one on the image itself, but it's fuzzy and hard to read unless you expand the image.

   Fixed. Cam (Chat) 22:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, a nice article. There are just a few minor issues, so I am putting the article on hold to allow time for these to be dealt with. If you have any questions, you can ask them here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. The question in the prose section, about the Background section, isn't enough to keep the article from passing GA, but it would be something nice to include in the article, so that can go on your list of things to do in the future :) Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)