Talk:United Nations Command–Rear/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 13:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review[edit]

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) The only "copy vios" are attributed quotes Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) So far as I can ascertain the images are all open use Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Pass Pass

Result[edit]

Result Notes
Pass Pass A fine article. A thorough yet succinct and comprehensible explanation of a potentially confusing topic. Excellent detail work from the author. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

@Chetsford::

Referencing.

  • Could you directly cite "invading hordes".
  • Could you directly cite ""prior to entry" except in "cases of emergency or where security is involved"".

General.

Prose.

  • "The Mandarin" should be in italics.
  • "From 1978 until at least 1987, the Philippines provided an officer to lead UN Command Rear." This reads oddly. Is the precise date on which command was handed over not known?
  • "UN Command-Rear is also charged with providing legal notice to Japan about the entrance of military forces from..." seems a little clunky. Change "about" to 'regarding'?

Images.

  • The caption in the penultimate image. I think that 'notional' would work better than "nominal". (Pedant's corner.)

Infobox.

  • "command staff" - should be upper case C. "protocol, liaison" - P.
Gog the Mild - Thank you very much, for this thorough review. I've made all of these changes, however, please let me know if I missed anything. To point 2 in Prose, the source is dated 1987 at which time the Philippines had command. For that reason I don't have the precise end date of Filipino command other than it lasted until at least the date of the source. Unfortunately, despite my best efforts, I have been unable to locate an alternate source which provides this information. Chetsford (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Nations_Command–Rear/GA1&oldid=1142013767"