Talk:Air Battle of South Korea/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canpark (talk • contribs • count) 11:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.	The article is well written, but I have three minor issues after I went through it. Firstly, be consistent with the format of dates (eg. "29 June" or "July 27"). Secondly, I suggest the usage of KPAF to describe the North Korea air force (eg. KPAF 1st Air Division) instead of "NK", because I noticed both were used at different parts of the article. Thirdly, I don't quite get this sentence: "Meanwhile, the 3rd Bombardment Group bombed targets around Seoul, seeking to slow the North Korean advance from the captured city." Are the North Koreans retreating? Fixed all three issues. —Ed!^(talk) 21:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
	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:
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The first air-to-air and air-to-ground operations conducted by both sides were well covered, and the effectiveness of air operations in the early battles of the war were put into context without going into unnecessary detail. Well done.
	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.	Generally the article do not indicate a sense of bias, but I would suggest replacing words such as "enemy" with "opponent". I think I have removed all instances of this. —Ed!^(talk) 21:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
	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:
	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.	Thanks for fixing the issues I've brought up. Consequently I will pass this article for GA because I can't spot any further problems, and I'm hoping to see similar air war articles in the future.Canpark (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your concerns. Thanks for your review. —Ed!^(talk) 21:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]