Talk:Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 09:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Progression
[edit]- Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
- Version of the article when review was closed: [2]
Technical review
[edit]- Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals one error:
- Herington_131 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Fixed
- Herington_131 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Disambiguations: no dab links [3].
- Linkrot: External links check out [4] (no action required).
- Alt text: image lacks alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only).
- Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks (on Long 1973) reveal no issues [6] (no action required).
Criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- "...but its crew survived and were evacuated back to the UK", perhaps more simply "but its crew survived and were evacuated to the UK..." (very minor point - suggestion only).
- Done
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- All major points are refenced to reliable sources.
- Citations use a consistent style.
- No issues with OR.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- All major aspects appear to have been covered.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- Looks fine IMO.
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No issues here.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
- No issues. Images are all PD and appropriate for the article.
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- This is an excellent article IMO. One citation error and a minor prose suggestion; however, nothing to prevent its promotion. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for the careful review. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)