Talk:Peng Dehuai/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 03:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: one found and tagged.

I aim to post a substantive review within 48 hours. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Well written, but there are minor inconsistencies in spelling: favor and labour should be either British or American English, not a mixture.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * One dead link: "Peng Dehuai". People's Daily Online. Retrieved February 10, 2012. I cannot find it in the the Internet Archive or Webcite. Can you replace this? ✅
 * Sources appear to be RS, I find no OR, assume good faith for offline sources. Spotchecks show statements supported by cites.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Thorough without unnecessary trivia
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images sufficiently captioned, tagged and licensed.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days for these issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, the dead link is fixed and I am happy to list this. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Author of the article obviously dedicated a significant amount of time to writing it. I would say that to increase accessibility, the intro needs to be scaled down significantly in accordance with WP:LEAD. Colipon+ (Talk) 17:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, but I find the lead to be a good executive summary of the article, and thus entirely compliant with WP:LEAD. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)