# Talk:Arnhem Oosterbeek War Cemetery

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arnhem Oosterbeek War Cemetery/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
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.
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.
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): 

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)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Arnhem Oosterbeek War Cemetery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090708005951/http://www.airbornemuseum.org/nieuws%202008/archief2006/news_uk.htm to http://www.airbornemuseum.org/nieuws%202008/archief2006/news_uk.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)