Talk:Operation Peppermint/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 14:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll review the article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- No duplicate links (no action required)
- Checklinks report no problems (no action required)
- No disambiguation links (no action required)
- Image licences and captions are fine (no action required)
- Referencing is in order (no action required)
MOS, prose and coverage:
- Why not wikilink Boston, Chicago, New York, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.?
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- The lead is within bounds of the WP:LEAD in terms of number of paragraphs, but I'd prefer if there were a bit more information in there. For instance, it might be useful to readers to state when the preparations started, name a couple of prominent related officers, and somehow indicate scale of the operation. The latter might be achieved by indicating how many film packets and Geiger counters were deployed/ready for deployment or in some similar way. I find these to be particularly useful since there is no infobox designed for this type of article which could cover any omissions made in the lead in respect of providing quick information for readers. Still, nothing elaborate is needed regarding this.
- There is an infobox for this type of article. Added all this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, I tried to locate one but failed! I'll need one like that down the road myself.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- There is an infobox for this type of article. Added all this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Is there any information offered by the sources on how the Manhattan Project used the materials provided from the Operation Peppermint? If so, a sentence or two would be good to have (possible procedures developed or discarded, simply stored, disposed of or whatever else).
- Added a sentence at the end. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Overall, I like the article and there are very few issues to address. Nice work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- All clear, happy to pass.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)