Talk:Battle of Hill 70/GA1

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

Hi, I am reviewing your article for GA. I took the liberty and did some minor copy editing. I added p. and pp. to the references, changed the date format to be consistency dmy, delinked the dates per Date overlinking, broke up one large paragraph into two and a few small things like that. This is a well written article. I only have a few comments to help it become GA. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 03:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Did not understand this: "in preventing local German formations from transferring and aiding..." - transferring what?
 * I have clarified that it was intent of preventing the transfer of men and resources

Otherwise, the article looks great to me.
 * Also, per WP:LEAD, the lead needs to be long so as to include more of the article.
 * Expanded

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 03:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Final GA review (see here for criteria)

Article passes GA. Very nicely done. Congradulations! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: NPOV
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: