Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Meligalas/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Ashmedai 119 (talk · contribs) 19:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: PearlyGigs (talk · contribs) 11:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review

[edit]

Hi, Ashmedai 119, I'll review this as one of my "two-for-one". Although I'm a member of WP:GOCE, this is actually my first GA review. I'll do some reading and then come back to you, hopefully soon. Best wishes. PearlyGigs (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]

I'm not going to beat about the bush, or indulge in nit-picking, because this is clearly an exceptional article, let alone a good one. Although the FAC process doesn't appeal to me, I would think this article must stand a very good chance of passing if you are interested in nominating it there. I've listed the six GA criteria below and provided comments.

  1. Well written. The prose is fine and there are no spelling, grammar, or syntax issues. As far as I can tell, it complies with the MOS. I like the lead which both introduces and summarises the subject very concisely.
  2. WP:V and WP:NOR. The reflist is good and the citations are presented in standard publishing format. No problems in this area and certainly no evidence of original research or copyright issues. While I don't have access to the bulk of your sources, the information is presented in an authoritative and scholarly fashion, so I have no reason at all to doubt their authenticity.
  3. Breadth of coverage. It is quite a large article so coverage is quite wide but I would say everything is within scope. Because of the complex background factors and the ensuing massacre, it is necessary to broaden the scope beyond the conflict on 13–15 September. Otherwise, we would not be able to appreciate the big picture and that is a problem I have seen in many articles about battles.
  4. Neutral. No problems. The information is presented objectively.
  5. Stability. No problems.
  6. Images. These are all relevant and, as far as I can tell, there are no issues around using them.

I will promote to WP:GA now. An interesting though sometimes disturbing subject. The article provides a clear insight into WWII events that, sadly, have been largely forgotten. Very well done. Best wishes. PearlyGigs (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]