Talk:Battle of the Defile/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 11:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

The article is well-written, aside from a few minor grammatical errors which I corrected, and decently wikified, with an informative introduction. There are no problems with list formats, as no list other than the references has been included in the article. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(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.

Verifiable with no original research:

Article cites four reputable, published sources, frequently and thoroughly in all of its body sections. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(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);

and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

This battle-article covers all main aspects of its subject; the background, the battle itself, and the aftermath. I did not see any trivia included in any of these sections; all the information presented is noteworthy. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC) (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and[reply]

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

No biased content displayed in this article. I'd even go so far as to say it portrays superb neutrality on this subject. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Roughly 85% of the changes made to this article at the time of this evaluation (including the creation of the article), have been made by one editor, over a course of roughly 1 and 3/4 years, and no evidence has been given that any of the remaining 15% of contributions have been made in conflict with the main editor's or each other's contributions. In short, it doesn't look like anyone's been edit-warring on this article. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

There is only one image currently used in the article, and it is suitably captioned for its use in the article's infobox. The image is created by the primary contributor to the article; issued under a valid free license. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(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.

Article is GA-worthy. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]