# Talk:Battle of Nazareth

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Nazareth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 00:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
This review will commence in a bit.  QatarStarsLeague (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking it on. --Rskp (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


### Lead
Great, and very explanatory. A pass here.


### Infobox
This is good. Passes.


### Background
Both half sections look fine, as the reference at the end is consummate for the entire section.


### Deployment
This section is also good. I have good feelings about this article!


### Desert Mounted Corps objectives
Concise, and sufficient.


### Esdraelon Plain
This section also passes!


### Prelude
This mini-section looks good. I will continue tomorrow; so far, so excellent!  QatarStarsLeague (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


### Desert Mounted Corps advance
Sets an expository stage for the next few sections; it passes.


### 5th Cavalry Division
Good section.


### Approach to Nazareth
When you say "negotiated" the path, does that mean the subjects repaired or secured the passageway?
Everything else good.

Thanks. Have clarified this. --Rskp (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


### Desert Mounted Corps plans
Solid section here.


### Battle
How could the 18th Lancers have mistaken a little village for Nazareth, albeit Nazareth is a village itself. If you can, elaborate there.
 Everything else is good.

Sorry there is nothing more. It does sound like a lame excuse. --Rskp (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


### Nazareth
"As they continuing their attack..." As they were continuing their attack...
Everything else, very good.

Done. --Rskp (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


### Aftermath
I was just about to ask about the dearth of German/Ottoman accounts, but the first note expounded why this is the case. Anyway, a very nice section here.


### Conclusion
This is one of the best articles I have reviewed, and in consequence one of the most engaging reviews. I truly did scrutinize the article and found just these few issues. When they are ameliorated, I can pass the article.  QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your time and interest. Your comments are much appreciated. --Rskp (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)