Jump to content

Talk:Operation Matterhorn logistics/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. simongraham (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 09:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 15:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that logistics is a critical topic that could be better served on encyclopaedias generally and that this looks like a high quality attempt at addressing this deficit. A cursory glance shows this article is close to fulfilling the GA criteria, but I will start my review properly shortly. simongraham (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Overall, the standard of the article is very high.
  • It is of sufficient length, with 5,376 words of readable prose.
  • The lead is reasonable given the length of the article at 252 words.
  • 99.9% of the article is authored by Hawkeye7.
  • It is currently assessed as a B class article.
  • There are duplicate links to Calcutta.
    checkY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few instances of discrepancies between the sources that are not included in the article. For example, Bell 2018 p. 45 states that the Chinese estimated the cost to be five billion yuan. The article cites Dod 1966 and an estimate of between two to three billion.
  • I note that DTIC ADA378204 is on Archive[[1]] as is Wheeler's WWII Bombers Over Japan[[2]]. Do these have any useful insights?
    I have the Time-Life book here. I am surprised that it was available online; looks like a copyright violation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding some non-US content, maybe from a Chinese or Japanese perspective. For example, it is mentioned that Hansen was attacked by six Japanese fighters and a passing note of Operation Ichi-Go, but these seem the only mention of Japanese action. Is there anything else in the literature?
    I split the article off from the main because the latter was getting too big, and my primary interest is in logistics. Since it is about logistics, the Japanese do not feature as much as in the article on operations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding some non-US sources. For example, does Xu Jianhong's Zhōng měi liánhé: Měiguó lù háng zài èrzhàn zhōngguó zhànchǎng (United States and China: U.S. Army Aviation in the Chinese Battlefield of World War II), available on Google books[[3]] offer any additional insights?
    I cannot read non-European sources. However, I made use of Li's book, which is based on Chinese sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although not a GA criterion, I suggest adding ALT to the images for accessibility.
  • The sentence "The idea of basing the Superfortresses in China first surfaced at the Casablanca Conference in January 1943." is a direct copy from Haulman 1999. Suggest rewording.
    The Operation Matterhorn article original contained large slabs copied from Haulman. I have been replacing them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few minor grammar points:

@Hawkeye7: Thank you for your work on this. I feel there are just some minor tweaks to go. Please take a tell me when you would like me to look at this again. simongraham (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: All issues addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks excellent, Hawkeye7. I will start my assessment now. simongraham (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

[edit]

The six good article criteria:

  1. It is reasonable well written.
    the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
    it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    all inline citations are from reliable sources;
    it contains no original research;
    it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
  3. It is broad in its coverage
    it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
    it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. It has a neutral point of view.
    it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
  5. It is stable.
    it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
    images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Matterhorn_logistics/GA1&oldid=1236536449"