Talk:Operation Zarb-e-Azb/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

Reviewer: ~~Sailfish2 (talk · contribs)~~ 08:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Took over the review since reviewer became inactive. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 17:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article and current public knowledge, depend too heavily on ISPR press releases, which are not a WP:THIRDPARTY reliable source. While the article remains so heavily dependent, directly or indirectly via other media re-reporting the ISPR's press releases, on ISPR releases, it is not a balanced, encyclopedia level, good article in my opinion. This is my first encounter with GA review, so other reviewers can take that into account. Sailfish2 (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we have to depend upon ISPR in this case. In NWA, only the militants and the security forces are left. There is no access to Independent media, they cannot confirm the casualties, but to elucidate the case I added "Official sources" for clarification. ISPR is not a third-party source but it's a government's source, and the article states that the figures are official. Other media have no option other than to re-report ISPR, and that does not prevent the article to become a GA. Fai zan 18:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: {{GAList/check|???}
See comments below.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
See section labeled "Comments"
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Major aspects covered.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
More images would be great, but no images (well there is an image) is okay according to this policy, however you may want to get some more images when you are nominating this article to FA.

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
See above.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Please address the comments below.

Comments

I just have one question to ask. Is it appropriate to create a table for the Section called "Chronology", kind of like the article Malaysia Airlines Flight 370's table? Besides that, its a pass. I disagree with the previous reviewer's statement about ISPR being relied on too much, as it is one of the only sources out there. Cheers! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 18:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am currently on a short term wikibreak and if you reply, please ping me/or send me a talkback. Thanks! .

Hey Brandon, thanks for taking over. I don't think a table would be appropriate here, it would be a very large one, and the users may find difficulty in updating it, as the chronology needs to be updated everyday. I think that prose would be better relatively, like in those of other articles like Mohmand Offensive, Orakzai and Kurram offensive, etc. If you pass the article, consider giving this award for the achievements section in my userpage. Fai zan 08:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just saw your response. Thanks for answering! Pass :D Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 11:39, 13 July 2014 (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.