Talk:Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United Kingdom/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 15:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I'll start this in a few days, but initial read through looks good. Made a couple of tweaks here--there was an incomplete sentence in invasion literature section. also reworked verbs to there was less passive voice. Ping me when you've had a chance to look it over. Haven't seen much on Erskine Childers or Le Queux recently. :) Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- I recast your edit on Goltz's invasion idea. I think it's a bit much to call it a plan, and I'm anxious to make it clear that the invasion novel came some 2 to 3 years after his suggestion was shelved. Hope that's OK. Factotem (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- 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):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail: