Talk:Battle of El Herri/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 16:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I've made a few copyedits; please feel free to revert or discuss anything you don't agree with.

All looks good to me, thanks - Dumelow (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead, link Laverdure

Linked - Dumelow (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background, "after their intervention in" - whose intervention?

Rephrased to clarify - Dumelow (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zaian counterattack, "Mrabtin, Aït Harkat, Aït Ischak and Aït Ichkern" - can any of these be individually linked?

They could be linked, but I don't believe anyone is likely to create articles for these individual tribes - Dumelow (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for French defeat, ""poorly prepared and poorly executed" "act of indiscipline"" Why is this written as two separate quotes? If they are separated in the source, "poorly prepared and poorly executed...act of indiscipline" would be a better way to write it.

I believe (the Google Books page is no longer available for preview and the hard copy is prohibitively expensive) that the two quotes came from Lyautey on different occasions so they are separated - Dumelow (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy, "there has ever been a case" - should this be "never been"?

Fixed - Dumelow (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Three dead links - see this for details.

The Francia link works fine for me. I have replaced the other two links - Dumelow (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Singer, Barnett; Langdon, John W. (2004) appears in References, but not in Notes.

Removed - Dumelow (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be really picky, refs should be in numerical order when there is more than one in a row.

Reordered (I think I got them all!) - Dumelow (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks reveal no concerns with sources.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Need to check the licensing on File:Pacha hassan.jpeg. It should probably have a published pre-1923 tag, as I can't see anything on the website that gives it a CC 3.0 tag.

I think it will all be above board, the uploader is an admin (and ex-arbitrator), I believe the webmaster of the source site agreed to release the image for free use. I have dropped the uploader a line at his talk page to ask him to explain the situation - Dumelow (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Some minor questions above about prose, references and one image. Once these are addressed, we should be good to go for GA status. Overall, a very nice article! Dana boomer (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry for not getting back to this sooner - I saw your replies, but then completely forgot about the review :( Everything looks good now (the Singer ref hadn't been removed, so I took the liberty of doing so, and I tweaked the licensing on the image), so I am passing the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]