Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Commando Hunt/archive1

Operation Commando Hunt
Recently did a revamp of this article and hope that it meets the criteria. RM Gillespie 17:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * The criteria:
 * 1. It is well written. It seems well written, laid out nicely, organised well into various sections, it may have the air of a fictional thriller in a couple places perhaps but otherwise it looks encyclopaedic.
 * 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Unfortunately, I'm not in much of a position to comment on this, having not been familiar with the topic myself, but you have a lot of good references, all from written works on the topic, which is a definite plus. There are plenty of facts in there.
 * 3. It is broad in its coverage. Same comments from number 2 apply here. It seems to cover all the aspects, possible if you put the casualties etc for both sides in the info box, and perhaps the flags of the combatants in the info box next to their names, minor aesthetic things like that possibly.
 * 4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Personally (and this is just me, by the way, i wouldn't be surprised if other users disagree, that’s cool) I feel that a section titled 'conclusion' makes the article sound more like your POV regardless of content, however you have put some references in that section to lessen the POV side of it somewhat.
 * 5. It is stable, according to the history, aside from the huge list of changes by yourself, the article seems stable.
 * 6. It contains images Good number of images, possible a little graph heavy and map heavy, perhaps some more photographs? Colour ones if possible, and aesthetically if you lay them out so they alternate to the different sides of the page, makes it a little more readable I think personally. Otherwise, images are fine.
 * That's just my two cents, as the review guide states above, minor minor issues should not hold an article back from a higher class as they are easily fixed. I'll keep my report as a comment though cause I'm not sure how well I reviewed your article! --SGGH 10:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support I would add a link to Igloo White right under the section heading, rather than burying it in the paragraph. Carom 19:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. It seems a little too POV for the U.S. side but contains a lot of information organized coherently and well-cited. Cla68 23:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)