Talk:Battle of Elephant Point/GA1

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

Hi! I'll be doing the GA review for this article, and I should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Is there are reason that the operation code names are bolded in the Background section?
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

The article looks great, so I'm going to pass it to GA status. I had one minor question regarding formatting, but it's not enough to hold up the GA nomination over. Congrats and keep up the good work! Dana boomer (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks! I usually bold operation names so that they're seen more clearly. Skinny87 (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)