In the 6th paragraph of the Planning and preparations subsection, you say twice that the Syrians arrived under false passports. This duplication is probably unnecessary.
In the Deception and final days to war section it says "The Directorate of Military Intelligence (abbreviated Aman), which formulated Israel's intelligence estimate and was known for its competency, was tasked with detecting troop movements and activity along Egyptian and Syrian forces, that would be particularly intensive in the last days preceding the assault." I'm really not sure what this sentence is trying to say, especially the last two clauses. Please reword to make clearer.
In the Israeli planning for a counterattack section, it says "Elazar clearly emphasized that no canal crossing and no attempt to reach the strongpoints with his approval.", which doesn't make sense. Please reword.
I've added several fact tags. Where the tag is at the end of a paragraph, in general the entire paragraph needs referencing. Other places I've added them to quotes that need references. There is also one place where a fact tag was already in place.
What makes ref #19 (Fighter Aircraft Generations: A Reference) a reliable source? It appears to be a discussion board post.
What makes ref #20 (Phantom with Israel) a reliable source? It appears to be a self-published website.
Overall, this is a nice article. There are a few issues with prose and referencing that need to be taken care of before it is of GA status, but these should be easily rectified. Please let me know if you have any questions!
Dana boomer (
talk)
23:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the review. I think prose issues have been cleared. I've added some citations where they're needed, and the rest will come soon. --
Sherif9282 (
talk)
21:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Looking good so far. I was looking at the edits and realized that somewhere along the line quite a bit of information had been deleted, I'm assuming accidently. I readded this information, so if it was meant to be removed, please feel free to revert me and leave me a nasty note for undoing your work :)
Dana boomer (
talk)
00:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)reply
How is work progressing on this? It has been several days since anything has been done on the article, and GA reviews do operate under a time constraint, although it is fairly flexible. Please let me know if you're still working on this!
Dana boomer (
talk)
14:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm on it. I just started university, and I'm still getting myself organised. I've added some citations, and the rest will soon follow. As for Ref #20, it includes several sources. Take a look and tell me what you think. Thanks. --
Sherif9282 (
talk)
12:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Citations have been added were needed. Are there any remaining issues with prose or citations? You haven't replied yet to my above question on Ref #20.
Sorry for taking so long to reply to your question. The new refs look good. Ref 20 should be good, since it gives its sources, but if you plan to take this article to FAC it will probably be challenged again. Ref 19 still needs to be replaced though. 20 and 93 need publishers, and 93 needs an access date as well. Once these are done, the article should be good to go for GA status.
Dana boomer (
talk)
19:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)reply