# Talk:Battle of Bondo

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Bondo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 21:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


### Starting review
Should be able to start tomorrow. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


### Basic GA criteria
Well written: the prose is clear and concise. 
Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct. 
Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections. 
Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout. 
Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning"). 
Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction. Not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation. Not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations. 
All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided. 
All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc. 
Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline. 
No original research. 
No copyright violations or plagiarism. 
Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style. 
Neutral. 
Stable. 
Illustrated, if possible. 
Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright. 


### Summary
A very interesting article that is well written and stays within scope whilst achieving summary style. I altered the introduction because, as with Battle of Bombo, there is no need to begin an article with the title. It makes for awkward construction. I've no problems with this article and am happy to pass it immediately. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The lead of this article gives great background knowledge of this battle including where it takes place and during what time. As well as who all is involved, and why the battle started in the first place. Covering both countries scenario neutrally as it pertains to the events leading to the battle. It greatly reflects the rest of the article. The structure of this article flows chronologically as any battle should. Giving the events of brewing up that starts the war. Listing what happened during the war, and finally telling us what happened after the war. The information is neutral and is not at all biased. The sourcing is beyond credible as it is mainly derived from written and published material. Two out of four books referenced in the article dates back to the 1980's. Which is pretty close to when this battle ended. The sources seem to be presented accurately and the article seems to be balanced, not leaning all on one source of information. The author's tone is to inform us all on this war, that was lost by friendly fire. I was impressed when I came about learning that a recoil less rifle even existed, being able to shoot ammo that is larger than a standard ruler. Great work! Watsherm (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)