Talk:Operation Devil Hunt/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: CaptShayan (talk · contribs) 07:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Yue (talk · contribs) 06:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article has a substantial number of grammatical errors and run-on sentences. The tone of the article is also unencyclopedic and reads like a news timeline, particularly in the Background section.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Most of the article body is contained within the Background section and is about entirely different events that led up to the operation. There are only five sentences about the operation itself, and it is merely a record of the number of arrested.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Only one sentence is dedicated to the accused.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The article would benefit from the addition of images. There are free images already available of individuals involved in the operation.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Quick failing the article in its current state due to multiple issues. The prose needs to be expanded with much more detail about the article topic itself. The writing is not good and needs significant improvement from a second or third eye. The nominator themself started the article but did not write most of it; this nomination seems premature.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.