Talk:Battle of Hill 70/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing your article for GA. I took the liberty and did some minor copy editing. I added p. and pp. to the references, changed the date format to be consistency dmy, delinked the dates per Date overlinking, broke up one large paragraph into two and a few small things like that. This is a well written article. I only have a few comments to help it become GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Did not understand this: "in preventing local German formations from transferring and aiding..." - transferring what?

I have clarified that it was intent of preventing the transfer of men and resources

• Also, per WP:LEAD, the lead needs to be long so as to include more of the article.

Otherwise, the article looks great to me.

Expanded

—Mattisse (Talk) 03:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Article passes GA. Very nicely done. Congradulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 20:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)