Talk:Mark E. Mitchell/GA1

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 10:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 10:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Lead;
 * Expand lead to at least two paragraphs
 * Section 1;
 * Date of birth?
 * Marquette University ('87) -> Marquette University (batch of 1987); the style used may not be understandable to some readers
 * he received Marquette University's Alumni Professional Achievement Award; for what?
 * Mitchell is married, and has several daughters; several is too awkward. better to find the count
 * many details were missing including his DOB, his schooling, childhood, where did he undergo his pre-commissioning training, when he was commissioned
 * Section 2;
 * Mitchell began his career assigned to the 24th Infantry Division at Fort Gordon; when?
 * Having served during the Persian Gulf War; In which year, the gulf war has two phases, in 1990 or 1991 or both?
 * Entering Afghanistan via helicopter, travelling on horse back; unnecessary and awkward details
 * responded to Mazar-e-Sharif?
 * Who is John Walker Lindh? basic context required
 * he deployed to Iraq -> he was deployed to Iraq
 * Who is Mohammad Fazl? basic context required
 * From 2003 to 2009, Mitchell deployed to Iraq at least once a year; something about his action
 * the capabilities he had taught? What capabilities
 * Mitchell accepted steel? What do you mean by that
 * Section 2.1 and 2.1.1 are over lapping each other, better use clear
 * 76% confidence, violation possible, but this is due to the citation, no worries.
 * I think this hardly meets Ga criteria, many basic details are missing. Also there are a lot of issues with the prose. It is OK if you could bring in the concerned content as said above, else I would have to fail the article. Perhaps, a peer review would do before you renominate. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:33, 15 January 2017 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am closing this nomination as fail. There is no response from the editor and hardly meets GA criteria. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 01:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am closing this nomination as fail. There is no response from the editor and hardly meets GA criteria. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 01:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am closing this nomination as fail. There is no response from the editor and hardly meets GA criteria. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 01:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)