Talk:Peng Dehuai/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: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 03:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: one found and tagged.[1]

I aim to post a substantive review within 48 hours. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Well written, but there are minor inconsistencies in spelling: favor and labour should be either British or American English, not a mixture.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
~~One dead link: "Peng Dehuai". People's Daily Online. Retrieved February 10, 2012. I cannot find it in the the Internet Archive or Webcite. Can you replace this?~~ Done

Sources appear to be RS, I find no OR, assume good faith for offline sources. Spotchecks show statements supported by cites.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Thorough without unnecessary trivia
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images sufficiently captioned, tagged and licensed.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
On hold for seven days for these issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the dead link is fixed and I am happy to list this. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Author of the article obviously dedicated a significant amount of time to writing it. I would say that to increase accessibility, the intro needs to be scaled down significantly in accordance with WP:LEAD. Colipon+(Talk) 17:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, but I find the lead to be a good executive summary of the article, and thus entirely compliant with WP:LEAD. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2012 (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.