Talk:Capture of Afulah and Beisan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Droodkin (talk · contribs) 15:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Will start reviewing the article soon, looks interesting. I ask for patience, no one needs to rush here. Keeping the WP:GA table on standby. --Droodkin (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Update: Okay, there something I'd like clarifying.

• The 2nd Lancer's quote in the Afulah section, was it suppose to stand on its own? I am aware that it is a quote but I believe it is rather abrupt to end the section with it. A quote box would do, or some background behind the quote (no quotations are present either).
• Casualties? It is unusual for a military campaign article to not have a casualty list. Although it isn't mandatory, I'd recommend it. I understand if there is a lack of sources to cite a definitive figure.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	It should be said that there are some cases of unnecessary capitalisations throughout the article.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Direct quotes are cited, no problems here.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No visible problem.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses the capture of Afulah and Beisan in great detail.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good summary in the background section
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No hate to the Ottomans or Germans. But, more British coverage than Ottomans though this is expected since the article is of the assault.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Almost all images (with exception of one) are in the public domain. Kudos for finding good photos & maps.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, this article is definitely good article material. Congratulations!

--Droodkin (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)