Talk:Operation Swath-10/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 19:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take this article for review. The full review should be posted by later today. Dana boomer (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • I've made a few minor tweaks to wording and linking. Please feel free to revert any that accidentally changed any meaning.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Aftermath, "but the verdict is still pending as of July 2013." Do we have any update on this, being now October? Also, the source covers the 2012 information, but not the pending verdict as of 2013. Do we have a better source for this, perhaps something talking about the length of time the verdict is taking. (Aside, is this an unusual length of time for a verdict?)

   • Actually no, no verdict yet. It was expected to be rendered on 30 October, but it appears to be postponed for an undetermined period of time per this NYT article. ICTY is very very slow - the trial is now nearly six years old (started in November 2006) per this case info sheet. I added the NYT article info if that's alright.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

   • Please make sure all references listed in the References section have attached footnotes. For example, I don't think I see the first source listed under "Other sources" used in a footnote, unless I missed it someplace.

   • That one's cite #37--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
   • I've double checked the rest of them and they all appear in the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, very good. A couple of source/update niggles that I'd like to see worked out before I pass the article, but nothing major. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up the review. I'll try to address your concerns immediately.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, everything looks good, so passing the article to GA status! Dana boomer (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)