Talk:Nawa-I-Barakzayi District/GA2
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 17:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Many dead external links that need to be fixed.
- Done
- No DABs.
- I dont understand what you mean
- Needs a map.
- Done
- This has made the Nawa-i-Barakzayi district a central hub in the opium and heroin trade. Nawa-i-Barakzayi Using the name too closely together; use substitutes like "the district", etc. to keep reader interest.
- It was a Taliban stronghold until the summer of 2009, when United States Marines were deployed there as part of Operation Strike of the Sword. Thereafter, it became a United States Marine Corps stronghold. You told the reader that it was the US Marine Corps in the first part, you don't need to tell him again. And what do you mean by Marine stronghold? Just because the Marines were based there didn't mean that the population supported them.
- It has become a success story: Afghan President Hamid Karzai and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) commander General Stanley McChrystal visited the district in January 2010 to highlight the success ISAF has had there combating the Taliban. Put this into past tense and rephrase as it reads badly.
- Done
- Link flood plain, Shamalan and Boghra canals,
- Done
- small locally built intakes what do you mean by intakes.
- Done
- 1st Battalion 3rd Battalion was relieved typo.
- Done
- Keep to the chronology by moving the Operation Strike of the Sword section into the middle of the Operation OEF section and reduce the heading size for the former section. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Done
- Sorry, I forgot to inform that I am on a wikibreak till 26, hope you will wait. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sure thing, but I hope that you can respond to these issues as soon as possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
While you have improved the article, there is still too much detailed information in the lede that should be in the main body. The biggest problem, however, is that there is virtually no information on the district before 2000 and I'm going to fail it for lack of reasonable completeness. That said, once you've added that material and cleaned up the article more, ping me and I'll expedite the review.