| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Paula article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Operation Paula has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | ||||||||||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Start edit
Page under construction. Dapi89 (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
GA Review edit
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Paula/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments edit
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay great. Dapi89 (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- It could do with a copy edit to improve the flow
Done - What makes http://france1940.free.fr/adla/ada_june.html a reliable site ?
- I don't know Jim, to be honest. I've always used this site to check French units and Orbats and I have never had cause to regret that. On the website in the citation, if you scroll down to the bottom, the editors/site admins have added a bibliography. They have cited their sources, so I trust them. Dapi89 (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)