Talk:1st Airborne Division (United Kingdom)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs · count) 23:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action required).
• Linkrot: External links all check out [4] (no action required).
• Alt text: images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working so will AGF (no action required).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • "Major-General Browning expressed his opinion..." should just be "Browning expressed his opinion" per WP:SURNAME. Done
  • Multiple MoS issues here: "the commander of the 1st Airlanding Brigade, George Hopkinson, was promoted to Major-General and given command of the division", should be: "the commander of the 1st Airlanding Brigade, Hopkinson, was promoted to major-general and given command of the division." per WP:SURNAME and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Military_terms. Done
  • "Major-General Down was posted to India..." should just be "Down was posted to India..." per WP:SURNAME.  Done
  • You wikilink gliders here "Operation Freshman was the first British airborne operation conducted using gliders, and..." however you have already mentioned gliders earlier in the article. The term should be wikilinked at first use AFAIK. Done
  • "the brigade commander, Gerald Lathbury, had relinquished..." should include Lathbury's rank here as first introduction per WP:SURNAME. Done
  • "The only German force in the area was elements of the 1st Parachute Division..." should this be: "The only German forces in the area were elements of the 1st Parachute Division."  Done

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

  • Excellent use of WP:RS.
  • Citations all follow a consistent style.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Coverage seems appropriate to me given the use of seperate articles to cover all the sections in detail. Article uses an efficient and informative summary style without going into too much detail which is covered elsewhere.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • Yes, this seems fine to me.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':

  • Images all appear to be PD and seem appropriate for the article.
  • One minor issue: File:British paratroopers in Oosterbeek cropped.jpg is lacking information about the date it was taken and the author. Is this available?  Done

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Just a couple of MOS and prose issues, and the minor point about the image I mentioned. Otherwise this article is excellent in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent review. As the original copyeditor, I disagree with some of WP:SURNAME for military units, but of course, this is not the place to express such disagreements! I have to sign off for now, but I'll fix these problems tomorrow, unless (as often happens) Jim fixes them before I come back. "Force in the area" ... ugh, you're entirely right, that's horrible :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Too easy. Actually I have to say that I am quite impressed with how polished this article is, it was a pleasure to read. Anotherclown (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

All changes completed for prose and MOS

Author and date added to image from the IWM database.

Thanks for the review, I believe all the points have been addressed.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

All issues have now been resolved, so I'm happy to promote. Well done again Jim. Anotherclown (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, this was the last outstanding article for the 1st Airborne Division Good Topic. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)