# Talk:Operation Ferdinand

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Ferdinand/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 08:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll take this one. Comments to follow over the next couple of days. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is looking to be in great shape, I have only noted a few things, most of which should be straightforward to address. I made a few minor ce tweaks as I went through as well. Zawed (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

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): 
1) Infobox: the objective field is blank?
2) Dupe link: Seventh Army
3) Operation Royal Flush is linked on the second usage, not the first.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
1) Holt and Lloyd are missing publisher's location.
2) Latimer has a double colon in the publisher's location.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
1) "originally threatened by Vendetta" - no context for Vendetta? Presumably another deception plan?
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Thanks! I'll get onto this later! --Errant (chat!) 18:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@Zawed: I think I've addressed these issues. Vendetta was a sub-plan of Zeppelin so I called it out when introducting that plan. --Errant (chat!) 13:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, looks good so passing as GA. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)