Talk:Exercise Strikeback/GA1

GA Review

1. Well-written:

   (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; yes

   (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. no

2. Verifiable with no original research:

   (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; no

   (b) 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); no

   (c) it contains no original research. not sure

3. Broad in its coverage:

   (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; yes

   (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). no

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. yes
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute yes

Citations

There are several fact tags that need to be replaced by sources. All online sources need a date of retrieval in accordance with MOS.

Once again. All online sources need a date when they have been retrieved. Please correct that and I can make it pass the GA. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Summary style

Far too many flowery quotes. replace them with summaries. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with the quotes? —the_ed17— 19:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have truncated the Gruenther and Dulles quotes, eliminated the first Trainor quote, and retained the second Trainor and Time magazine quotes in toto. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should use summary style. The quotes contain lots of non-essential information. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

• Implement the {{USS}} and {{warship}} tags where applicable. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Good day! The {{USS}} and {{warship}} tags have been implemented to the extent that it could be done. Please note that Operation Strikeback transpired in 1957 prior to the 1975 realignment of the U.S. Navy's ship type designations. Thus, for example, the USS Saratoga (CV-60) had the designation of an "attack aircraft carrier" (i.e., CVA-60) during Operation Strikeback, which cannot be so denoted with {{USS}} and {{warship}} taggging. Marcd30319 (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, they can as long as there is a redirect from that designation: i.e. USS Saratoga (CVA-60) -MBK₀₀₄ 18:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • All {{USS}} and {{warship}} tags that can be implemented have been implemented.Marcd30319 (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I see a few more, but I'll take care of them (they require specialized knowledge of the templates to implement). -MBK₀₀₄ 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)