Talk:Battle of Fort Lahtzanit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Battle of Fort Lahtzanit 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 3, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Fort Lahtzanit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:Ed!(talk) 03:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
  1. It is reasonably well written:
    Comments
    1. The lead should be expanded to give a little context. Make it a few paras and talk a little about which war, which country, etc. Right now it is very brief.
    2. Whose plan is Operation Badr? What does it say? The article should be self-sustaining, ie all the context for what is going on should be here without having to click another link.
    3. The article is short on links. See if articles exist for any of the towns, military units, etc. in the article.
    4. "...between an area two kilometers south and one-and-a-half kilometers north of the fort." - these measurements need convert templates.
    5. "Abassi was reinforced with a Sa'iqa company (lit. lightening; Egyptians commandos)" - link to company (military unit) and commando here. Military jargain tends to be lost on the average reader.
    6. The references aren't consistent. The proper format for them is "Name year, page."
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:
    Pass no problems there
  3. It is broad in its coverage:
    Pass it needs a little more context to explain which war and what was happening in the area around this battle, etc.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:
    Comments
    1. 'Isolation' section: "They succeeded in attracting enemy fire," - avoid the use of the term "enemy" to keep the article neutral
  5. It is stable:
    Pass No problems there.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
    Pass An infobox is in use.
  7. Overall:
    On Hold for just a few comments before it passes. —Ed!(talk) 05:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for making this review! All comments/issues have been addressed I believe. Let me know if there's something else to be done. --Sherif9282 (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)