Talk:Liberation of Arnhem/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * Not Yet
 * 1) My main issue with the article is the number of typos and punctation errors dispersed throughout. I recommend a Level 1 Copy-edit. You can do this yourself or have someone else look over the article closely to tidy it up.
 * 2) The lead should be expanded to summarize the entire article. See WP:LEAD.
 * 3) Is there any way a chart could be added to the Allied forces section? This would help show which units were subordinate to which corps. I understand that the German order of battle was convoluted so this is not neccessary for that section.
 * 4) Section Headers should not contain "The." Numbers in the subheads are also frowned upon.
 * 5) The "Losses" section is short enough that it can just be folded into the "Aftermath" section. At the same time, I would recommend the Aftermath section, which is also short, could be a subhead in the Battle section. This would help reduce the number of short headers in the article.
 * 6) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Pass Only one ref issue, which is below.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Not Yet
 * 1) "to the joy of the local population" - this is an opinion which is not neutral. It should be reworded and referenced specifically to make the article more even.
 * 2) It is stable:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) Overall:
 * On Hold until a few issues are resolved. — Ed! (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, I've started working through it.
 * 1) I've found an embarrassing number of mistakes. Are there any other specific ones you can see?
 * 2) Done. Any good?
 * 3) An Order of Battle? Good idea, will get onto it.
 * 4) Done
 * 5) That can be done, but just thought I'd try the layout there at the moment. This way it allows 4 main headings - Background, Preperation, Battle and Aftermath.  What do you think?

I've removed the local population bit as it didn't really fit into the slightly remodeled sentence.

Cheers! Ranger Steve (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, I don't see any other major problems with the article. It now meets the GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. Well done! — Ed! (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)