Talk:Commissioner Government/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 15:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
It is an interesting article. I am glad to pick it up for a review! Would be making straight forward changes as I go, but, as always, please feel free to revert any, if I make a mistake! Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- "included;" extra semi-colon I guess. :P
- Good pick-up, used a colon and then semi-colons.
- Perhaps the lead could be expanded a bit? Not a compulsion though, as it looks good even now. However, I just thought that we could have a bit more in the lead.
- Added a bit about German supervision.
- Perhaps give a slight idea of what these German military ranks are, in brackets? Reichsmarschall, etc.
- Added notes with footnotes, except Reichsmarschall, which was a unique rank and position.
- "the Luftwaffe transfer a training school..." would be better to name the Luftwaffe instead, as it seems ambiguous (I think it is schroder?)!
- reworded, see what you think?
- "This meeting resolved to shift to a general uprising" This should be reworded.
- added "from sabotage operations" after shift
- "administration encouraged 545 or 546 prominent" I did not quite understand the numbers... 545 or 546?
- There is a note which explains the different numbers in the sources.
- Thanks for the review, Adityavagarwal! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- Great work with this one, Peacemaker67! Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail: