Talk:Battle of Wanat/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The lead needs to be longer - two full paragraphs would be about right - and should be a full summary of the article without including new information, such as that which is currently included about it being the highest recent American death toll.

FixedXavierGreen (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links, such as that one in the lead, should not be present in the body of the article. If there isn't a Wikipedia article on the subject, just don't link it.

FixedXavierGreen (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Web references need to include publishers and access dates at the very least. For example, current refs 18 and 19 lack publishers, and #27 lacks both publisher and access date. These are just examples, though, so please check all of the web references.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Are there really no pictures that could be used to illustrate this article? A picture of the area, a picture of American troops on a different mission in Afghanistan, nothing? If not, it's fine, and not a requirement for GA status...it would just be nice to have an image!

2 images addedXavierGreen (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Overall, this article is really close to GA status. There are just a few issues with MOS and references, as well as one minor comment to do with images. Once these are taken care of, the article will be good to go for GA status. Nice work so far! Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The work done on the article looks good so far. All that's left to do is publishers for a few references and an access date for one. Once that's done, I'll promote to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a lot left to do on this article, so it shouldn't take to long to get it the rest of the way to GA status. Is work still progressing? Also, please note the weasel-word tag that has been placed - this sentence should be re-worded to tell who "suggested" this theory. Dana boomer (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the statement was from a subscription only source, since i could not find the statement elsewhere i simply eliminated it from the text.XavierGreen (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe i fixed the publishers and access date problemsXavierGreen (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing some more cleanup on the references right now. I'll finish it up later today and then pass the article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished the ref cleanup, and will now be promoting the article to GA status. A few notes: I readded the information that had been tagged with the weasel-word tag, and reworded it slightly so as to not need the tag. This information is useful, it just needed a prose tweak. I converted all of the references to using cite templates. There was a mix of use and non-use, so I just standardized them all and added more information when necessary. Nice work on the article! Dana boomer (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]