Talk:Operation Badr (1973)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the 6th paragraph of the Planning and preparations subsection, you say twice that the Syrians arrived under false passports. This duplication is probably unnecessary.

Done. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

1. • In the Deception and final days to war section it says "The Directorate of Military Intelligence (abbreviated Aman), which formulated Israel's intelligence estimate and was known for its competency, was tasked with detecting troop movements and activity along Egyptian and Syrian forces, that would be particularly intensive in the last days preceding the assault." I'm really not sure what this sentence is trying to say, especially the last two clauses. Please reword to make clearer.

How does it sound now? --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

1. • In the Israeli planning for a counterattack section, it says "Elazar clearly emphasized that no canal crossing and no attempt to reach the strongpoints with his approval.", which doesn't make sense. Please reword.

Done. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

1. • In the October 8th section, both the main section header and the subsection header have the same title. Please vary this or remove one of them.

Done. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • I've added several fact tags. Where the tag is at the end of a paragraph, in general the entire paragraph needs referencing. Other places I've added them to quotes that need references. There is also one place where a fact tag was already in place.
   • What makes ref #19 (Fighter Aircraft Generations: A Reference) a reliable source? It appears to be a discussion board post.
   • What makes ref #20 (Phantom with Israel) a reliable source? It appears to be a self-published website.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. 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):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, this is a nice article. There are a few issues with prose and referencing that need to be taken care of before it is of GA status, but these should be easily rectified. Please let me know if you have any questions! Dana boomer (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I think prose issues have been cleared. I've added some citations where they're needed, and the rest will come soon. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking good so far. I was looking at the edits and realized that somewhere along the line quite a bit of information had been deleted, I'm assuming accidently. I readded this information, so if it was meant to be removed, please feel free to revert me and leave me a nasty note for undoing your work :) Dana boomer (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

How is work progressing on this? It has been several days since anything has been done on the article, and GA reviews do operate under a time constraint, although it is fairly flexible. Please let me know if you're still working on this! Dana boomer (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm on it. I just started university, and I'm still getting myself organised. I've added some citations, and the rest will soon follow. As for Ref #20, it includes several sources. Take a look and tell me what you think. Thanks. --Sherif9282 (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations have been added were needed. Are there any remaining issues with prose or citations? You haven't replied yet to my above question on Ref #20.

P.S., forgive me for being so painfully slow with this review. --Sherif9282 (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to reply to your question. The new refs look good. Ref 20 should be good, since it gives its sources, but if you plan to take this article to FAC it will probably be challenged again. Ref 19 still needs to be replaced though. 20 and 93 need publishers, and 93 needs an access date as well. Once these are done, the article should be good to go for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, you weren't late at all. I've added the needed info. As for Ref 19, give me some time to find a replacement. --Sherif9282 (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How about this article? It is credited to one Dr. Joseph Yoon. Does this qualify as legitimate source in place of Ref 19? --Sherif9282 (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that looks like a good source to replace ref 19. Thanks for taking the time to find it! Dana boomer (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Sherif9282 (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this final comment. Everything looks good with the article, and so I am passing it to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)