Talk:Operation Ferdinand/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 08:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. Comments to follow over the next couple of days. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is looking to be in great shape, I have only noted a few things, most of which should be straightforward to address. I made a few minor ce tweaks as I went through as well. Zawed (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
1) Infobox: the objective field is blank?

2) Dupe link: Seventh Army

3) Operation Royal Flush is linked on the second usage, not the first.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
1) Holt and Lloyd are missing publisher's location.

2) Latimer has a double colon in the publisher's location.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
1) "originally threatened by Vendetta" - no context for Vendetta? Presumably another deception plan?
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Thanks! I'll get onto this later! --Errant ^(chat!) 18:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC) @Zawed: I think I've addressed these issues. Vendetta was a sub-plan of Zeppelin so I called it out when introducting that plan. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looks good so passing as GA. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]