Talk:Mark E. Mitchell/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 10:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Lead;
  • Expand lead to at least two paragraphs
• Section 1;
  • Date of birth?
  • Marquette University ('87) -> Marquette University (batch of 1987); the style used may not be understandable to some readers
  • he received Marquette University's Alumni Professional Achievement Award; for what?
  • Mitchell is married, and has several daughters; several is too awkward. better to find the count
  • many details were missing including his DOB, his schooling, childhood, where did he undergo his pre-commissioning training, when he was commissioned
• Section 2;
  • Mitchell began his career assigned to the 24th Infantry Division at Fort Gordon; when?
  • Having served during the Persian Gulf War; In which year, the gulf war has two phases, in 1990 or 1991 or both?
  • Entering Afghanistan via helicopter, travelling on horse back; unnecessary and awkward details
  • responded to Mazar-e-Sharif?
  • Who is John Walker Lindh? basic context required
  • he deployed to Iraq -> he was deployed to Iraq
  • Who is Mohammad Fazl? basic context required
  • From 2003 to 2009, Mitchell deployed to Iraq at least once a year; something about his action
  • the capabilities he had taught? What capabilities
  • Mitchell accepted steel? What do you mean by that
• Section 2.1 and 2.1.1 are over lapping each other, better use {{clear}}
• 76% confidence, violation possible, but this is due to the citation, no worries.

I think this hardly meets Ga criteria, many basic details are missing. Also there are a lot of issues with the prose. It is OK if you could bring in the concerned content as said above, else I would have to fail the article. Perhaps, a peer review would do before you renominate. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am closing this nomination as fail. There is no response from the editor and hardly meets GA criteria. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)