Talk:Battle of Kranji/GA1
GA review on hold edit
I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have commented in detail on each criterion below:
1 Well written FAIL
1.1 Prose
This is generally good and flows well. No concerns here.
1.2 Manual of Style
While MoS compliance is good, with sections, headings, layout and wikilinks all properly formatted, there are a couple of things here that need attention:
- Lead: this needs expanding. It should not be an introduction to, but a summary of, the article (per WP:LEAD). It should mention every major point in the article and be capable of standing as a mini-article in its own right. I would recommend including the current lead text in the Background section (assuming it can be sourced), and writing a new lead section.
- Dates: there are a few full dates in the text that need wikifying (I'm pretty sure this shouldn't include the subsection headings though).
- Done. -- Aldwinteo 08:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- References: although not a GA criteria, we recommend formatting references using the templates on WP:CITET where appropriate.
- I've formatted some citations that were added by other editors earlier. Pse note that the format u mentioned was already used to cite full reference details of its sources under 'References' earlier. Some of the citations u saw i.e. "<ref> ... </ref>" are used for the 'Notes' section only. This practice was adopted from many articles I saw earlier and I hope it's not a main issue here. -- Aldwinteo 08:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I fixed these as I was reviewing, but for your future reference:
- If you use emdashes ("—") they should be unspaced per WP:DASH.
- Times use the colon (":") as a separator rather than the full stop.
- Noted with thanks -- Aldwinteo 08:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
2 Factual accuracy FAIL
Although the article makes good use of its references, there are some gaps that need to be addressed. As a minimum rule of thumb, each paragraph should be referenced (preferably at the end) with a cite that covers the content of the paragraph. Additional cites should also be provided as needed (eg for quotes, controversial statements etc). At present the 10 February 1942 and Aftermath sections need additional content citations.
- Done, citation added on the affected paragraphs -- Aldwinteo 08:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
3 Coverage PASS
The subject is covered in appropriate depth, and the article remains focused throughout.
4 Neutrality PASS
No evidence of bias was found; the article is neutrally written and balanced.
5 Stability PASS
The article is stable.
6 Images PASS
All images are captioned and have appropriate license information (although in the future the map could perhaps be replaced with a free one).
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 in some circumstances the hold period can be briefly extended). To help with tracking, editors may like to strike through each comment as it is dealt with, or use the template {{done}} after each comment.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or are ready for a re-review. In any case I'll check back here in seven days (around 29th October). All the best, EyeSereneTALK 11:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
GA pass edit
Thank you for your hard work; I am now happy to pass this article as meeting the GA criteria, and have listed it on the WP:GA page under History > War and military > Conflicts, battles and military exercises. For the record, Aldwinteo gets the editing credit for this GA pass.
Congratulations, and well done! EyeSereneTALK 18:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank u for your time and support. Best regards -- Aldwinteo 01:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)