Talk:A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk · contribs) 18:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments: Looking very good, thanks for your work on this. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
 * Thank you very much! I've made the suggested edits as listed below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

In-depth comments:
 * Links in the lede (and where they appear again): (1958|1958 in literature); (Travel|Travel literature).
 * done


 * Background: References. The uncited statements incude their venturing to a place that no-one had visited for 50 years and the then unclimed peak in the Hindu Kush.
 * done.


 * The book: "Contents"?
 * The contents are explained in "Structure"; have added "Chapter..." to clarify this.

Also inconsistent referencing; if you cite quotations from the book in structure chapters, then you should do so for the Illustrations and Preface.
 * done.
 * Structure: A brief overview of the structure, perhaps something like "The book contains 20 chapters …" and any consistent features that they have?
 * added.
 * Driving out; 5 The Dying Nomad: "Persia (present-day Iran)"
 * done.
 * Journey; 8 Panjshir Valley: Only Panjshir is linked, but there is a previous instance of this that needs linking in Illustrations before it.
 * done.
 * 19 Disaster at Lake: Use [sic] or [sic].
 * I'd have thought that wasn't necessary in a chapter title (now that the word "Chapter" has been added).


 * Inconsistent liking of nationalities, in Legacy Polish and Austrian are linked, but elsewhere English is not linked, for example.
 * added 2 links, labelled Wally Herbert as an English explorer.


 * Legacy: Bryon should be linked straight to "Lord Byron"
 * done.


 * References: Source should be Edition, since really all of the references are sources (i.e., a source of information referred to by a citation).
 * done.


 * Made a few minor changes myself, but otherwise everything is fine and meets the GA criteria (as considered below). Therefore I pass the article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to review an article yourself. And well-done on the work on the article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Good article criteria