Talk:Battle of Lanzerath Ridge/GA1

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

Reviewer: Harrison49 (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The article is well written and follows a consistent style.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * In 'American defensive preparations', the final paragraph needs a reference for the temperature of the night. ✅


 * 'U.S. artillery unavailable' needs a reference for the second paragraph. ✅


 * 'German attack' needs a reference for the fourth, fifth and seventh paragraphs and the end of the final paragraph. ✅


 * 'German armor advance' needs a reference for the third and seventh paragraph, and the end of the eighth. ✅


 * 'Prisoners of war' needs a reference at the end of the first paragraph. ✅


 * 'Unit recognition' needs a reference at the end of the first paragraph. The paragraph after the list of medal recipients also needs a reference. ✅


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article covers the main points and remains focused.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article maintains a neutral point of view.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * The article does not appear to be subject to edit warring.
 * 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):
 * Images are well used and in the public domain.
 * 1) Overall: Good work. A very comprehensive article and a good read. Harrison49 (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail: