Talk:Aleksandr Maykov/GA1

GA Review

Passed. simongraham (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 16:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kges1901 has written a number of Good Articles on the Soviet Union. This looks like another of high standard and I look forward to starting a review of it shortly. simongraham (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The article is notable as evidenced by coverage in multiple sources.
The article is of reasonable length, with 1,490 words of readable prose.
The lead is a reasonable relative length at 155 words.
99.4% of authorship is by Kges1901.
It is currently assessed as a B class article.
There is no evidence of edit wars.
It is consistent with the relevant Manuals of Style.
Earwig gives a 0.0% chance of copyright violation. This is extremely impressive.
The text seems clear and neutral.
Combine the first sentence in the lead with the remainder to create a single paragraph as per MOS:PARAGRAPH

Done

Consider adding a comma at the end of the subclause "In mid-1943" in the lead. Similarly after the subclauses "In November", " In early August", "In this capacity", "On the night of 1–2 November", and "In January 1948". Consider commas around the subclause "in April 1946". There may be other instances that I have missed.
Done
Amend to "where he served as a platoon and company commander".

Done

I see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.
Please remove the duplicate links to Moscow Military District and Order of Kutuzov.

Done

Add the translated title for Doluda.

Done

I see there are entries for Maykov in Soloviev's publications Commanders of Red Army divisions 1941-1945[[1]] and Red Army Colonels. 1935-1945[[2]] (both in Russian). I suggest adding one of these to the sources.

Those entries are copies of previously published information.

I will accept the off-line sources WP:AGF. Spotcheck of the online sources confirm they concern the subject.
Suggest including the exact page numbers where possible.
The infobox image seems appropriate and relevant but is of poor quality. Is there a better one available?

Unfortunately not

The image has an appropriate PD tag.

@Kges1901: Excellent work. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 09:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

@Kges1901: Thank you for your responses to the comments. I believe that this article now meets the criteria to be a Good Article. simongraham (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.