Talk:Lebanese Armed Forces/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am beginning a GA review of this article. Please feel free to leave any comments regarding the review below. Thanks! Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 02:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The grammar needs a little working on. StNicksRocks (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

FAIL

I stopped my line-by-line review in the middle of the "History" section due to significant concerns. Despite a lot of good work done, this article will need much additional work to reach GA status, and more so than I believe could be done during a hold period. Here are my reasons for failing this article:

1. There is need for significant copy editing, some of which I did up to the point I stopped my line-by-line. However, much more needs to be done, and should be done by those with a better grasp of the topic than myself.
2. Much of the information on the history of the army is drawn from its own website - Wikipedia generally demands reliable, third-party sources. Much of the information drawn from the website appears to be word-for-word, and though while cited, this still could be considered a copyright violation or at least plagiarism. Using a non-independent source in this manner could also lead to NPOV problems, and may open the article up to missing important - but controversial - facts.
3. There is confusion between the use of the word "army" and the use of "armed forces." They are used interchangeably at times, but it is unclear whether the reference is to the armed forces as a whole (in which case, "LAF" or "armed forces" should be used) or just the ground forces branch (in which case "army" is appropriate).
4. A few sentences need citation, which I've noted. However, the entire "Combat history" section needs additional citation, which it is currently lacking in key parts.
5. The article may be too detailed. The section on training seems superfluous, as this is a typical military training regimen, and not notable to this particular military. Entire sections on ranks and camouflage patterns, too, may be too much detail, though I know this is common on articles about military organizations. Generally, large sections with many images and little text are a concern. Either they need more text for explanation, or need to be eliminated.

I also left a few commented out notes in the article with more specific concerns.

Please leave any questions or comments regarding this review here so they may be visible to all. Thank you. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 19:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)