Talk:Battle of Lanzerath Ridge/GA1

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Harrison49 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Harrison49 (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    The article is well written and follows a consistent style.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
In 'American defensive preparations', the final paragraph needs a reference for the temperature of the night.   Done
'U.S. artillery unavailable' needs a reference for the second paragraph.   Done
'German attack' needs a reference for the fourth, fifth and seventh paragraphs and the end of the final paragraph.   Done
'German armor advance' needs a reference for the third and seventh paragraph, and the end of the eighth.   Done
'Prisoners of war' needs a reference at the end of the first paragraph.   Done
'Unit recognition' needs a reference at the end of the first paragraph. The paragraph after the list of medal recipients also needs a reference.   Done
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    The article covers the main points and remains focused.
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    The article maintains a neutral point of view.
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
    The article does not appear to be subject to edit warring.
  4. 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 are well used and in the public domain.
  5. Overall: Good work. A very comprehensive article and a good read. Harrison49 (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
    Pass/Fail: