Talk:Allied logistics in the Southern France campaign/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pbritti (talk · contribs) 02:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Intro
Hi, I'll be taking on this Good Article review for the article "Allied logistics in the Southern France campaign"! This is my first review for the GA, though I have previously submitted articles for review. Patience will be appreciated as I work through the text to ensure that this article meets the standards to be classified as a GA. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No worries. I'm not in a hurry on this one. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Preliminary comments

 * The preference for the Notes/References format works excellently here, considering the proliferate number of textual sources.
 * The article reads extremely cohesively, though perhaps to the article's detriment. While read in full the article functions effectively, certain things like dates could do with being repeated in additional sections to improve at-a-glance legibility. Definitely not something that would detract from this article to the degree to deny the article GA status under WP:GACR.
 * Avoidance of plagiarism is evident. Very good job on that.

I will review citations in detail next. Thus far, an extremely promising start. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: life has happened. Will try to perform more reviewing this weekend but we are perhaps two weeks out from completion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Prose
Excellent. Minor fixes not worth mentioning. Red text is accompanied by non-English Wikipedia link which is good. ✅

Base 901

 * But the French Army recruited in North Africa was made up of personnel from the French colonial empire, many of whom came from less industrially developed parts of the world. This made finding the requisite skilled personnel for service units challenging. I'm going to delete the "but" and restructure the succeeding sentence

Images
Very well illustrated. ✅

NPOV
✅ Article exceeds NPOV standards.

Conclusion

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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * While the the lede reads somewhat overly vague at times, it succeeds in providing a generalized summary that is supported by the sourced information found within the article. Otherwise, he writing is tight and no typos or grammatical errors are evident.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Exceptionally well-referenced. Superior in summary than some academic pieces on subject.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * While the article might be construed as dry, one can only expect so much flair from such a topic lest it violate NPOV standards. Several instances find the article entering into specifics, but generally the deployments of unsummarized information and statistics are executed to demonstrate scale and unique characteristics.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Very good
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * True
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * First, I would like to thank for their patience throughout the process. Second, I must commend them for the completion of an excellent article absolutely worthy for elevation to Good Article status. This article was clearly written and was very useful for someone still learning the ropes of GA. As I am new to the process, if I fail to properly admit the article to GA status, I would like the support of other editors. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You've done it correctly. Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You've done it correctly. Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)