Talk:Battle of Elephant Point/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I'll be doing the GA review for this article, and I should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Is there are reason that the operation code names are bolded in the Background section?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The article looks great, so I'm going to pass it to GA status. I had one minor question regarding formatting, but it's not enough to hold up the GA nomination over. Congrats and keep up the good work! Dana boomer (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! I usually bold operation names so that they're seen more clearly. Skinny87 (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)