Talk:Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 13:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- No disambiguation links found (no action required)
- Checklinks reports no problems with external links (no action required)
- There are several duplicate links in the article. They should be removed per WP:OVERLINK. Those are: German Army (German Empire), 10th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht), Grossdeutschland Division, Panzer III (x2), Gerd von Rundstedt, Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist, 6th Army (Wehrmacht), Stalingrad, T-34, Generaloberst (x2), Teleprinter, Breslau, Panzerfaust, Dresden, Grabenstätt.
- done, except for two instances of info in the infobox. This eases reading on mobile devices MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- According to WP:SURNAME full names (with rank where applicable) should be mentioned on the first instance of the name only. Afterwards, only the surname (without the rank) should be noted. I noticed this in case of Kleist, Rundstedt, Hube and Guderian, so far, but there may be more of such instances - please check for others.
- Copyvio Detector indicates no problems with copyright related issues (no action required)
- Please add a US Public Domain tag at the commons for image File:Strachwitz-Wappen2.png (other images have appropriate licenses and sourcing)
- The final sentence of the first paragraph of the "After World War II and final years" section is not referenced. Pleae provide a reference.
- Out of six notes, only one (5th) is referenced. Please provide references to the remaining five.
- done, except for the text generated by the template {{German title}} MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Besides the above two issues, sourcing appears to be in order. (no further action requried)
- According to MOS:YEAR, year ranges such as 1902–1922 should be presented as 1902–22 (provided both years belong to the same century)
Those are the most significant issues here, especially referencing. I'll have another read-through of the prose once the references are completed though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Everything seems to be in order now. Passing--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)