Talk:Tet Offensive/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Interchange88 ☢ 13:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

Done

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Done ^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

Done

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

Done^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Done

Broad in its coverage: Done

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

Done^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Done

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Done
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Done

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Done

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

Done

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Done^[6]

This is an excellent, well-developed article, certainly deserving of GA status. The only thing I might add is that it may be too well-developed, and is slightly too long. Maybe some of the content can be moved into separate articles.

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]