Talk:Joachim Bernhard von Prittwitz/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 05:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Link all the military ranks throughout the article on the first mention—second lieutenant, first lieutenant, major etc.
• Also prefix the ranks of the military officers where ever possible
• Lead and infobox;
  • He became a lieutenant general and the head of gendarmes regiment, and inspector general of the cavalry of Brandenburg March and Magdeburg in 1775. He was promoted to Lieutenant General in 1785 and general of cavalry in 1788; These sentences are confusing. Did he become a Lt Gen, head of regiment and IG of cavalry, all in 1775. "was promoted to Lieutenant General in 1785", again this phrase will contradict that and also be redundant. Please recheck this and drop the initial capitals on "Lieutenant General" fixed
  • Mention the complete dates in the period, after the name, as they are available. Use spaced en dash
  • Dates of awards in the infobox are not required fixed
• Section 1;
  • Periods of his parents are out of context; drop them off
  • Date of his birth is not mentioned in the prose fixed
  • I need some confirmation over the children names, why are two names mentioned in each point. Do you mean their partners? If so, they are completely out of context, remove them, also the periods put them in footnote.
• Section 2;
  • Junker is over-linked fixed
  • Modern equivalent for Rittmeister in braces on its first mention fixed
  • stabnding?
  • Prittwitz was appointed Major -> Prittwitz was appointed major fixed
  • lieutenant-colonel -> lieutenant colonel fixed
  • Friedland is dab-link. Fix it
  • A comma (,) after "On 12 December 1768"
  • Quote box; just mention the promotions, remove the awards and positions
• 0.0% confidence, violation unlikely

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think I got everything..... auntieruth (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)