Talk:Daniel E. Barbey/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   Disambiguate APD and put parentheses around it or something.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   It's not clear why Beach Parties are a big deal. Is there a link or something you can reference? He was obviously married, do you have any more details about when or any children?

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

1. The Beach parties represented a conflict between doctrine in FTP167 and reality. It illustrates the changes made to doctrine.

   I've redlinked Beach Party as I think some more context is needed to explain the doctrine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

2. My sources have no more details on his family.
3. Unlinked the APD link.