Talk:Battle of Kamdesh/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Airborne84 (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working...

The article is not ready to be GA yet, but I didn't fail it since it could pass with improvements. Comments are below:

1. Is it reasonably well written?

a (prose): FAIL b (MoS):

Major issue: The prose is too stilted. This is the single biggest issue overall. The article reads like a collection of information as opposed to paragraphs of prose that tell a story. This tends to happen when multiple editors contribute bits information and the article doesn't actually get "written". The "background" section is probably the best example of this, although there is a one-sentence paragraph in "Aftermath" as well. See the Battle of Bizani, which is a decent example of a GA that uses prose in complete paragraphs to tell a story.

Observation Post Fritsche is introduced rather abruptly in the lede. It needs a bit of explanation for what it is and where it was, even though it's discussed in the body. This could be one sentence or even part of a sentence.

"The attack was the bloodiest battle for US forces since the Battle of Wanat in July 2008, which occurred 20 miles (32 km)." Sentence fragment which needs revision. Also, although this is not necessary to attain GA, it may be desirable to provide a source for this statement.

"Quick reaction forces did not reach the outpost until 7:00 pm that day, while insurgents had controlled parts of the outpost as late as 5:10 pm." This sentence needs rewriting. Both parts of the sentence are fine and could stand alone. Their relevance together in the same sentence is not clear. When read together, it's also not clear what the sentence contributes to the paragraph.

"The outpost was evacuated the next day and later bombed on October 6 to prevent use by insurgents." This is the final sentence in the "Battle" section. This might be better in the "Aftermath" section though. And the "Battle" section could use a better "closer". When exactly did the battle end, for example? The section should have a decent closing sentence(s) that still transitions to the next section.

You use the word "Coalition" troops. The average reader may not know what the Coalition is. This needs a brief explanation or, better yet, simply a Wikilink.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

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

Which reference stated that it was the bloodiest battle since Battle of Wanat?

I can't access reference 7 regarding the US estimates of casualties. Was it the US that estimated the casualties or was it ISAF? Also, since these estimates could feasibly be a source of contention (as noted in a previous talk page thread), it may be a good idea to list a second source that is verifiable by a reader. This is a comment only and is not a show-stopper for GA.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

a (major aspects): HOLD b (focused): PASS

The infobox lists Afghan forces as part of the belligerents and casualties. Yet, there are no Afghan forces under "strength". Also, "civilian guards" are mentioned in the article without explanation of who they are (at least in their first mention).

"US Army soldiers at both outposts had been ordered to prepare to evacuate them and had informed local Afghan leaders of their intention to do so." This needs a bit of explanation. ("Been ordered to evacuate".) Were they ordered to do so that morning? Is this in reference to the deliberate withdrawal plan? That's mentioned two sentences later—consolidating these thoughts will help construct a better paragraph that describes this topic.

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy?

Fair representation without bias: PASS

I deleted the use of "although" early on. Given this change and the changes after the discussions on the talk page, the article seems reasonably free of POV issues.

5. Is it stable?

No edit wars etc.: PASS

6. Is it illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate?

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): PASS (although I'm not sure about the link to the video. You might want to get a second opinion on that if you're not sure it's free use). b (appropriate use with suitable captions): PASS

7. Overall:

Pass/Fail: ON HOLD

References comments

NY Times or New York Times?

Why is Philadelphia Enquirer and Military Times in italics, but the other sources are not?

If the editors here would like time to improve the article given the above, I'll leave it on hold. If not, I'll remove it from the GA nom page. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the nomination. The article can be renominated when adjustments have been made. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for butting in here, but I’d just like to point out that the article is woefully light on detail in the battle section. Could the reviewer consider that, please? Content is king, right? Boscaswell talk 09:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]