Talk:Operation Mallard/GA1

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments
This article is in very good shape, though I have some comments:
 * "There was no fixed plan for troops arriving as part of Operation Mallard – all would depend on how well the preceding units of the 6th Airborne Division and those landing at Sword beach had done during the day" - given how heavily planned Operation Overlord was, this is quite interesting. Can you expand upon this topic? - it raises questions such as whether the drop was necessarily intended for D Day (would if have been delayed if things had gone really badly or really well?) and how the decision to allocate gliders to landing zones was made.
 * Added a little bit more, if all had gone well they were to expand the bridgehead southwards, presumably there were other contingency plans, but I can find nothing recorded.


 * The force crossed the English channel unhindered, to arrive in Normandy at 21:00" - the tense is a bit odd here - could you say that ' The force crossed the English channel unhindered, and arrived in Normandy at 21:00'?
 * Changed


 * The image record of File:Hamilcar Varsity.jpg says that it was taken during Operation Varsity in 1945, but this isn't reflected in the image's caption in this article
 * Added some text linked to varsity.Nick-D (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing the review.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries - that all works for me. I'd suggest a further copy edit and trying to expand the material on the planned goals for the brigade before taking this to an ACR - the British official history might have some material on this topic (tons has been written about the planning for Overlord). Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessment
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: