Talk:Führerbunker/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Feitlebaum (talk · contribs) 23:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Everything passes except for 1a. now since those minor copy edits were made.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   I've only got a few small quibbles-

• exits led into the main buildings and there was an emergency exit up to the gardens-Perhaps that could be rephrased as exits led into the main buildings, as well as an emergency exit. Done
• The 1943 development-It says 1943 in the lead, but 1944 in the body. It's unclear when the second part was built. Done
• He was joined by his senior staff, Martin Bormann, and later, Eva Braun-Was Bormann his senior staff, or was he joined by Bormann and his senior staff? When did Eva Braun move in? Done
• The bunker was crowded and oppressive,-Oppressive? How can an inanimate be oppressive? I don't understand that. You must have meant something else. Done - see what you think.

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Pretty much complies with all of the MoS for GA.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Sources look reliable.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   No bias whatsoever.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No edit wars, although it's edited semi-frequently.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images are from Commons.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article looks really good, and if those small prose issues are fixed, it'll be GA-status. Great job! Feitlebaum (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Kierzek (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)