Talk:Battle of Nazareth/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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

Lead[edit]

Great, and very explanatory. A pass here.

Infobox[edit]

This is good. Passes.

Background[edit]

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

Deployment[edit]

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

Desert Mounted Corps objectives[edit]

Concise, and sufficient.

Esdraelon Plain[edit]

This section also passes!

Prelude[edit]

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

Desert Mounted Corps advance[edit]

Sets an expository stage for the next few sections; it passes.

5th Cavalry Division[edit]

Good section.

Approach to Nazareth[edit]

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)[reply]

Desert Mounted Corps plans[edit]

Solid section here.

Battle[edit]

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)[reply]

Nazareth[edit]

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

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

Aftermath[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

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