Talk:Battle of the Chinese Farm/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 03:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC) I will review this shortly. It has a very interesting name! I hope the article and the review will be as interesting. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 03:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- Infobox, "Heavy" losses are not adequate. Give more information. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 03:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Gawrych (2000) and Walter (2002) to the biblography zone.
- Gawrych (1996) use the usual format, with a link to the webpages if you consider them neccessary. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 03:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Thank you for starting this review. At the moment, there's a revolution where I am :) , so this is far from the best time for me, so I hope you'll bear with me.

With regards to the losses. Heavy is more or less accurate for both sides, and there isn't a figure for the total losses for either side. We can change heavy to unknown, but the former is better in my opinion. The second comment has been addressed apparently thanks to User:Thurgate, and I'll see to last issue ASAP. Cheers! -Sherif9282 (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a tad of copyediting, I suggest you submit to the guild. 15:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Gawrych (1996) is now in the usual format. I've submitted a request to the guild too. --Sherif9282 (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else? --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Figures that the revolution is over (twas featured on ITN sometime ago). WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 17:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]