Talk:Operation Ferdinand/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 08:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Comments to follow over the next couple of days. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is looking to be in great shape, I have only noted a few things, most of which should be straightforward to address. I made a few minor ce tweaks as I went through as well. Zawed (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


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

Thanks! I'll get onto this later! --Errant (chat!) 18:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC) I think I've addressed these issues. Vendetta was a sub-plan of Zeppelin so I called it out when introducting that plan. --Errant (chat!) 13:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) Infobox: the objective field is blank?
 * 2) Dupe link: Seventh Army
 * 3) Operation Royal Flush is linked on the second usage, not the first.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) Holt and Lloyd are missing publisher's location.
 * 2) Latimer has a double colon in the publisher's location.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) "originally threatened by Vendetta" - no context for Vendetta? Presumably another deception plan?
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, looks good so passing as GA. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)