Talk:331st Rifle Division/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 02:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will come back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1; para 1; Consider rewording the first sentence as "The formation of 331st Rifle Division began on August 27, 1941", because"began forming" is a bit awkward and also months should be completely mentioned, not "Aug".
Section 1; para 1; I suggest rewording it completely as follows: The formation of 331st Rifle Division began on August 27, 1941, in the Tambov Oblast of the Oryol Military District, under the command of Major General Fyodor Korol. It remained under the command of Korol until February, 1942. This is because, this would increase the readability.
Please change the ranks all over the article, what is used Mjr. Gen. is not a commonly known abbreviation, I think definitely it mustn't be abbreviated in the way. It is better Major General is used to avoid ambiguity.
Section 1; para 2; sentence 1; "which was forming there in" may be replaced by "under". So it would read, ...assigned to the 26th (Reserve) Army, under the Reserve of the Supreme High Command.
Section 1; para 2; sentence 2; The phrase "At least" may be removed.
Section 1; para 2; sentence 2; Change "Nov. 7" to "November 7".
Section 1; para 2; "10 – 15 km" to "10–15 km, per WP:ENDASH.
Section 1; para 2; last line; "being assigned to 20th Army in Western Front" to being assigned to the 20th Army in the Western Front.
Section 2; para 1; sentence 1; "defense of the capital", whose capital, please clarify.
Section 2; para 1; sentence 2; Replace "Mjr. Gen." with "Major General"
Section 2; para 1; sentence 2; Not just "20th Army", but "the 20th Army"
Please change all the dates in the article to full months not just "Nov", "Dec", etc. And you see per MOS:DATEVAR and MOS:BADDATE, The format "Nov. 2", "Dec. 8" is completely unacceptable and also "Nov 2", "Dec 8" are only allowed in refs, tables, infoboxes, etc. In general use the month must be fully mentioned.
Section 2; para 1; In the sentence "counter-attack from the area of Khlebnikovo toward Krasnaia Poliana", it mus be "towards" and also link the places to their articles (if available).
Section 2; para 1; In "but on the 6th it merged with th", "the" before "6th" is not required, because it is just a date, just "on 6th" would be enough.
Section 2; para 1; "By two days later the division" may be reworded as By the next two day the division.
Section 2; para 2; Maintain consistency while mentioning the dates. Throughout the article dates have been mentioned in the last. But in the last sentence of this para, it is mentioned in the first i.e it ought to be Colonel (later Mjr. Gen.) Pyotr Berestov took command in April, 1942, and held it for the duration". And also clarify for what "duration".
Section 2; para 3; sentence 1; It must be " in the 20th Army" not just " in 20th Army", the article "the" must be used for military formations, whether it is a section or a command.
Please clarify "duration" wherever used. I mean in many sentences I observed "it would remain for the duration", this phrase is not clear. Please clarify what is the duration or the period.
Section 3; Recheck the sentence "was cleared of German forces by 0300 hrs. on July 1.", full stops are not in place. Also it is better to mention "am" or "pm, that just hrs.
Section 4; para 1; sentence 1; Clarify "for the duration".
Section 4; para 2; Link "Vistula-Oder Offensive"
Section 4; para 4; The sentence "so by this time was operating on a very reduced establishment" it is a bit confusing.
The referencing style must be corrected. It must be "p." or "pp.", not just "p" and "pp"
The "Gorbachevsky" source is to be moved into the long references i.e section 7. Also all the long references must be moved accordingly.
Who's photo is that in the infobox, I mean mention his position.

I also made a few edits apart from these. Revert them if they are not appropriate, but do explain. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kges1901: Any update on this? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Have notified Wreck Smurfy, who wrote most of the article, about the review. Kges1901 (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Hello. Thanks very much for your work on this. I've made the suggested edits that had not already been made. The only one I find problematic is: "Section 2; para 1; In "but on the 6th it merged with th", "the" before "6th" is not required, because it is just a date, just "on 6th" would be enough." This is not any usage I'm familiar with; my understanding is that "the" must precede ordinal numbers.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]