GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 06:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I did the Operation Trident review, I will take this one as well. Comments to come over the following days. Zawed (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: Thanks for taking up the review. I have taken care of the issues raised in Trident's review. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did some minor copyediting to the prose, please review these to make sure I haven't altered any meanings. Some of the copy editing changes to the Operation Trident article should have been replicated here as it would have made my review more efficient. I strongly recommend you have a look at your other articles that are still awaiting a GAR to see if feedback on already reviewed articles could be applied. In the meantime, issues I noted with this article:

Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There weren't much preparations, as mentioned small strike group was formed for the attack, no specific name was given. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: All done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The dupe link was missed but I have fixed it. I believe this article now meets the all the GA criteria: it broadly covers the subject, is well written in a neutral tone and is appropriately cited. Passing as GA. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]