Talk:Arnhem Oosterbeek War Cemetery/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   'The task of securing the Arnhem road bridge fell to the British 1st Airborne Division who dropped on the area on 17 September.' - Needs a comma after Division, and it should probably be 'which' not 'who'.

   No need to capitalize 'Division' unless it's part of a title.

   'With the exception of some of the Poles killed south of the river in Driel,' - What happened to the Poles? I'm guessing they were buried elsewhere after the battle, but please clarify slightly.

   I would convert the lists of the VC winners into prose and make a paragraph out of them.

   Details of the German dead is a single-sentence paragraph; please merge this into the previous paragraph.

I've reworked and referenced the first para of background, and redone the cemetery sections (plus expanded them a bit). As for the Poles, it's a while since I wrote this. I think I put it because the number of Polish graves don't match the total Polish dead, so I assumed some of these killed at Driel must have been taken when they pulled back. What happened to them after that I don't know. Instead I've totally reworded the line.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Citing the first paragraph of the background section would be a good idea.

   Although this won't stop me passing the article, what makes the website used for reference 7 a WP: Reliable Source?

Whilst I'd like to be able to make some killer defence of the site, there isn't anything really. It's obviously a personal site, and I usually use the photo galleries for external links, but not as a ref. I couldn't find this bit of info anywhere else unfortunately, although the photo slideshow the site has slightly backs it up. Although this doesn't meet WP:RS, my gut feeling is that the site is right on this one, just because it's amassed such a huge collection of materials, and doesn't make many specific claims otherwise.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Good little article, but needs a bit of prose and MoS work. Skinny87 (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

How's it look now? Ranger Steve (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good! Passing it now. Skinny87 (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sweet! Thankyou Ranger Steve (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)