Talk:March of the Iron Will/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 09:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

Some tweaks needed, but generally not in bad shape. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

As mentioned below, some slightly flowery language - e.g. "the truck-borne Italians were almost delirious with joy. Few could foresee that the conflict in Ethiopia would go on for another five years and that the day that these soldiers could reap the rewards would never dawn" Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

Various sections lack citations, and have been flagged up since October.
Is Time Magazine in 1936 a reliable source in this context? Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(c) it contains no original research.

Other than uncited areas, seems fine. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

The lead makes clear that this was a propaganda event, but the article itself doesn't explain much about this dimension to it. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Sections like "With this, five thousand men, bravest remnant of the old Imperial Guard" don't entirely feel neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

File:AO-Etiopia-1936-H-Cavalleria-indigena-verso-Addis-Abeba.jpg needs a US tag. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]