Talk:Battle of Nazareth/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 00:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC) This review will commence in a bit. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking it on. --Rskp (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Great, and very explanatory. A pass here.

Infobox

This is good. Passes.

Background

Both half sections look fine, as the reference at the end is consummate for the entire section.

Deployment

This section is also good. I have good feelings about this article!

Desert Mounted Corps objectives

Concise, and sufficient.

Esdraelon Plain

This section also passes!

Prelude

This mini-section looks good. I will continue tomorrow; so far, so excellent! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Mounted Corps advance

Sets an expository stage for the next few sections; it passes.

5th Cavalry Division

Good section.

Approach to Nazareth

When you say "negotiated" the path, does that mean the subjects repaired or secured the passageway?
Everything else good.

Thanks. Have clarified this. --Rskp (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Mounted Corps plans

Solid section here.

Battle

How could the 18th Lancers have mistaken a little village for Nazareth, albeit Nazareth is a village itself. If you can, elaborate there.
Everything else is good.

Sorry there is nothing more. It does sound like a lame excuse. --Rskp (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nazareth

"As they continuing their attack..." As they were continuing their attack...
Everything else, very good.

Done. --Rskp (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

I was just about to ask about the dearth of German/Ottoman accounts, but the first note expounded why this is the case. Anyway, a very nice section here.

Conclusion

This is one of the best articles I have reviewed, and in consequence one of the most engaging reviews. I truly did scrutinize the article and found just these few issues. When they are ameliorated, I can pass the article. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your time and interest. Your comments are much appreciated. --Rskp (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]