Talk:1st Army Group (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 10:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd).
• Linkrot: external links check out [4] (no action req'd).
• Alt text: images all have alt text [5] (no action req'd).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: no repeatlinks (no action req'd).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • Is there a missing word here: "...seized high ground on the south side of the Drava..."? Specifically should it be: "...seized the high ground on the south side of the Drava..."
  • "closing the ring around the remains of the 7th Army...", wonder if it would work better as "..closing the ring around the remnants of the 7th Army..."
    • Both done. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • Article is well referenced with all major points cited to WP:RS.
  • No issues with OR that I could see.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Most major points seem to be covered without unnecessary detail.
  • Any idea of casualties experienced by the 1st Army Group?
    • Sadly no, probably due to the desertions and fact that the Germans didn't even bother to mop up properly, there weren't the head counts you would expect. Even the number of POWs from the entire Royal Yugoslav Army is a wide range. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
      • No worries, I suspected that was the case. Thanks for confirming that. Anotherclown (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues I could see.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

  • Images all seem to be free / PD and have the req'd information / templates.
  • Captions seem ok.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Article easily meets the criteria in my opinion only a couple of very minor points above to deal with / discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Above points addressed/answered. Thanks for the review, Ac. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Passing now, well done. Anotherclown (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)