Talk:Bombing of the Bezuidenhout/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 03:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Having read through the article, I can see that there has been quite a bit of good work put into it, however, in its current form I don't believe that it meets the GA criteria as yet. I have listed my concerns below. I order to allow the article to be improved and to give it a good chance of success, I will place it on hold for seven days. Please feel free to respond below letting me know how you've addressed these comments, or if you want any further clarification. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * General summary of review:


 * Prose and MOS:
 * inconsistent English variation, for example "neighbourhood" (British) and "neighborhood" (US);
 * inconsistent date format: "March 3, 1945" v "3 March 1945";
 * per WP:LAYOUT, the Additional reading section should probably be presented below the References section;
 * in the infobox, I think it would present better to change the civilian casualties to the "|casualties3=" parameter and use "|casualties1=" for Allied military losses and "|casualties2=" for German losses (even if those two fields should just display as "Nil"). This is not a necessity, though, it is only a suggestion. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Verifiability:
 * is there a citation for this: "including eight firemen"? AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Coverage:
 * there is information that is in the lead, but which is not covered in the body of the article (for instance the information on the fact that the V-2s were the target). The lead should summarise the whole article, so that sort of information should be provided in the article, providing more context and detail than that which is in the lead;
 * in the lead it says "At the time, the neighborhood was more densely populated than usual with evacuees". Why was this? This should be metioned in the body and expanded upon to provide context;
 * the result/reason for the error is listed in the infobox in detail, but not discussed in the main body. Ideally that should be included in a prose section.
 * Operation Crossbow is only mentioned in the infobox, but probably should be mentioned in the body to provide context;
 * a German unit is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the body, so the reader has no understanding of what their involvement was;
 * the "Statistics" section would probably be better presented as a paragraph of prose, maybe in an Aftermath section (see comment below about structure);
 * were any of the attacking RAF aircraft shot down or damaged by the German defences in the area? Or were any lost en route or during egress?
 * there is a quote from a Dutch resistance newspaper, which provides some details about the public's reactions, but can any more be said about this? For instance, what did the Dutch government in exile say about it? Were there any reactions from Dutch organisations that were pro German? (I assume that there were some, but if nothing is mentioned in the sources, then no dramas, but one would imagine that there was some propanganda value for the Germans/pro-German Dutch;
 * can anything be said about reconstruction efforts in the affected area?
 * "As soon as the British realized the extent of the damage, they dropped fliers over the neighbourhood apologizing for the error." --> Did they help reconstruct the area after the war?
 * who were the key personnel involved?
 * was there an investigation/inquiry afterwards by the RAF? If so, what were the consequences?
 * did Allied tactics for bombing V2 sites change as a result?
 * Structure:
 * there is currently only one main section, with a couple of shorter sections. I suggest that it could possibly be restructured to enable a broader discussion of the topic. For instance, you might consider using headings such as: Background, Raid, Aftermath. Within the Background section you could discuss the context (i.e the V2 rockets, opposing forces, preparations, general war situation etc); with the Raid section you could discuss the event and in the Aftermath you could mention the results (casualties, damage to houses etc), reconstruction efforts and commemoration, etc.) AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Images:
 * I'm not sure about the licence for this image: "File:Db Theresiastraat-31.jpg". It currently uses "life of the author plus 70 years" as its rationale, but it doesn't state who the author is. So how can it be determined that it has been 70 years since they died? AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * General suggestion:
 * look at other World War II bombing articles, for instance the Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945) and the Bombing of Yawata (June 1944) (both of which are Featured Articles), and look at how they approach similar topics. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Result:
 * Per the nominator's request here, I have finalised this review as not successful at this time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)