Talk:Battle of Khafji/GA1

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

Hi, sorry I was hoping to get to this sooner but got busy. Essentially its a very good article but with deficiencies in prose. I'll give the article a copyedit over the next few days and then do a full review which I anticipate it will pass quite comfortably.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions

 * "In December 1990, Iraq experimented with the use of explosives to destroy wellheads in the area of the Ahmadi loading complex, improving their capabilities of doing so at a larger scale." - improving whose capabilities of doing what exactly?
 * "on 19 January the Ahmadi loading complex was opened" - what at the loading complex was opened? The taps? pipes?
 * "lummeted from a prewar level of an estimated 200 to almost none by 17 January." - Is this per day?
 * "so Saddam decided" - is it correct to refer to him as Saddam? surely Hussein would be more appropriate?
 * "A Company of the 2nd Light Infantry Armored Battalion" - I assume this is an American unit? It would be helpful to clarify.
 * "two Army heavy equipment transporters" - which army?
 * "and served as an example of what would occur throughout the rest of the war" - is there a better way to phrase this?


 * Most of it should be fixed. Instances of Saddam have been changed to "Saddam Hussein" (I've read and hear the use of Saddam, as opposed to Hussein, but just to be safe I'm adding both parts of his name).  I didn't mark the nationality of the 2nd Light Infantry Armored Battalion, since it is mentioned under "order of battle".  Finally, I rephrased that final sentence, but I don't know if it sounds any better now.  Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 14:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Passed GA
Hi there, I am happy to tell you that this article has passed GA without the need for any further improvement. Listed below is information on how the article fared against the good article criteria, with suggestions for future development. These are not required to achieve GA standard, but they might help in future A-class or FAC review process.
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Still needs some work, but in general around 8/10.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Thankyou and congratulations, an excellent addition to Wikipedia:Good Articles. All the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)