Talk:Battle of Lanzerath Ridge/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Harrison49 (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2011 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article is well written and follows a consistent style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

In 'American defensive preparations', the final paragraph needs a reference for the temperature of the night.  Done

'U.S. artillery unavailable' needs a reference for the second paragraph.  Done

'German attack' needs a reference for the fourth, fifth and seventh paragraphs and the end of the final paragraph.  Done

'German armor advance' needs a reference for the third and seventh paragraph, and the end of the eighth.  Done

'Prisoners of war' needs a reference at the end of the first paragraph.  Done

'Unit recognition' needs a reference at the end of the first paragraph. The paragraph after the list of medal recipients also needs a reference.  Done

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article covers the main points and remains focused.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article maintains a neutral point of view.

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The article does not appear to be subject to edit warring.

4. 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 are well used and in the public domain.

5. Overall: Good work. A very comprehensive article and a good read. Harrison49 (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail: