Talk:Operation Tractable/GA1

GA Review

GA on hold

I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have commented in detail on each criterion below:

1 Well written WEAK FAIL

1.1 Prose

This would benefit from a light copyedit, although it's mostly fine. I don't mind going over this if it will be helpful.

I've done a bit of copyediting over the last day or so, although it wouldn't hurt for you to go over to be sure. Cam (Chat) 18:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.2 Manual of Style

No major issues here; I made a few tweaks as I read through, and things seem up to GA standard. However:

The links to external websites in the citations should be formatted (use of {{citeweb}} template is recommended, though not required) to include access dates.

Done. Cam (Chat) 06:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to include the Juno Beach Centre in the References section - just use a formatted link (per above) in the cite.

Done. Cam (Chat) 06:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is over-wikilinked in places. Generally only the first occurrence of a word should be linked, and then only if it adds to the article somehow. I noticed, for example, that 'Falaise Gap' is linked multiple times, as are many of the units (eg 'Polish 1st Armoured Division' etc). I should perhaps add that I don't see a problem with linking words from both the lead and the first occurrence in the article body - it can help the reader by saving lots of scrolling ;)

I think I've got most of the overlinking fixed. I'll recheck tomorrow. Cam (Chat) 06:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also no real need for the External link to montormel.org, as it's used as a source and linked from there.

Removed. Cam (Chat) 06:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 Factual accuracy WEAK FAIL

Only a couple of things here:

There is an apparent inconsistency throughout the article in the figures given for German losses. I'm not sure what to suggest, as you know the sources better than I, but things like the end of August 21 saying "The Falaise Gap had been closed, and over 100,000 men were trapped in the Pocket.", then the next section stating "Conservative estimates for the number of German soldiers captured in the Falaise Pocket approach 50,000." somehow need reconciling.

Ah, guess I should have been a bit more explicit there. 100,000 were trapped in the pocket, but a large number managed to escape. Keep in mind, also, that figures for the number of captured Germans show incredible variety (as outlined in the "Casualties" subsection.) I'll reformat that to be a bit more explicit. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granatstein is given as a reference book in References, but hasn't been cited anywhere in the Footnotes section. Was it used at all?

Ah, didn't catch that before. No, Granatstein wasn't used for the refs (I had intended to, then didn't). I'll remove that. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 Coverage PASS

Good, broad coverage of the battle. No issues here.

4 Neutrality PASS

No evidence of POV.

5 Stability PASS

No concerns here.

6 Images PASS

Looks good - nice selection, well presented and captioned, with appropriate licenses.

As a result of the above concerns I have placed the article on hold. This gives editors up to a week to address the issues raised (although if constructive work is underway, the hold period may be extended). I will regularly check back here to mark off those issues that have been satisfactorily resolved and to address any questions and comments you may have.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or believe the article is ready for a re-review. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 20:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA pass

Thank you for addressing all of the issues raised above. I now have no hesitation in passing this article - well done! For development in the future, you could expand the article's coverage slightly by explaining how the Germans managed to get themselves trapped (ie Hitler's insistence on a totally unrealistic counter-attack westwards when they should have been retreating eastwards, and his refusal to allow a withdrawal until it was too late). I hesitate to mention it, but a map or two will also help, as will further copyediting, if this is heading FA-wards eventually ;)

Another fascinating article; enjoyed reviewing this! All the best, EyeSerene^talk 08:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking for free-licensed maps for a while, I haven't been able to find any. If I find one, I'll upload it immediately. I've also put in a request at the Logistics dept. for copyediting. Cam (Chat) 21:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this article was less than 800 bytes a month & a half ago, this is excellent news that the GA has passed. Cam (Chat) 02:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]