Jump to content

Talk:Commissioner Government/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 15:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • "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.

  1. 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:
  2. 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:
  3. 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):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: