Talk:Government Army (Bohemia and Moravia)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 01:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this one, comments to follow in the next few days. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Content/Style

The lead could be expanded a little to better reflect the content of the article.
The lead mentions that the Government Army was also known as the Army of the Protectorate but this isn't mentioned in the body of the article. Also, the website used for note 6 refers to the "Protectorate Army".
Shorten the pipelink for "State President was commander-in-chief" to just "State President" .
Jaroslav Eminger should be mentioned as commander in the organisation section (was he the only commander for the entire period of World War II). You may need to phrase it carefully to avoid confusion between commander and commander-in-chief.
Maybe link Lány Castle?
"Initially, the bulk of the force..." Is the force the 1st Battalion of the previous paragraph or the Government Army?
The paragraph beginning "Initially, the bulk of the force... has four cites to note 7 but no other cites. This means the entire paragraph needs only one cite, at the end. The same applies to the previous paragraph which is only cited to note 6.
Suggest rephrasing "...many of the transfer soldiers were gradually cashiered..." to "...much of the Government Army's original personnel were gradually dismissed...".
Any combat losses? Did any personnel receive gallantry awards or perhaps service awards from Germany?
Did the army surrender and to whom? The article jumps straight from from operations to legacy without any transition.
The notable personnel section only mentions one individual so hardly seems worthwhile. I suggest trying to work this individual into the text. For example, in the legacy section, you could mention that Karel Effa went onto to establish an acting career in the Czech film industry.
World War II should be linked on first mention (currently second mention).
So long as it couldn't be confused with another army mentioned in the same paragraph, you only need to recite "Government Army" in full once in each paragraph, second and following mentions could just be "The army".

References

Some of the notes aren't in order, e.g. the first sentence of the organisation section, note 2 is before note 1. There a rw a few others throughout the article.
Have to assume good faith on the foreign language references.
The book references need place of publication.
ISBN for the Littlejohn reference.
The presentation of note 11 is not consistent with the other website refs.
The title of note 12 is not title case so is inconsistent with the other English-language refs.

Other stuff

Images appear to have appropriate tags but I'm not an expert on this. If it is your intention to take this to A-Class you might want to get them doublechecked first.
Just the one dupe link, public duties
No dab links
External links check OK, but you might to consider archiving them.

I have completed my initial review. Further comments may follow depending on any changes made in response to my comments. Will check back in a few days. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zawed - thanks very much for this thorough review. I think I've made all these updates, but let me know if I've missed anything. A couple items I could not update, though:

Combat losses - I couldn't find any information regarding this and it may be that there simply were none to report since it had such a tertiary job throughout the war.
Decorations - I couldn't find anything related to this either. Non-RS sources (i.e. posts on message boards) indicate a system of decorations had yet to be devised by the time the protectorate collapsed so this may be the reason I'm turning up a blank.

I've also added a few more lines here and there (e.g. some info on uniforms, rationale on why the Germans wanted a Czech army, and a short-lived plan by Moravec to send it to the Eastern Front.)

Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I found some info on decorations and added it. I also added a section called "Related Forces" about the St. Wenceslas Company. Chetsford (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, this is looking good, I did make a few edits to correct minor errors. Just one thing: the publisher/location info for note 17 needs attention. Once sorted, will be good for GA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zawed thanks again! I've just updated the location parameter in note 17. Chetsford (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did a couple of ref consolidations that I had missed, that is something you need to watch out for as you bring articles to GA. Passing as GA now.

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:

Additional comments by Lingzhi

To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:

First, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js .
On the same page and below that script add importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page.
Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */.

When you've added all those, go to an article to check for various messages in its notes and references. (You may need to clear your browser's cache first). The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck is not foolproof and can be verbose. Use common sense when interpreting output (especially with respect to sorting errors). Reading the explanatory page will help more than a little. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link; archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]