Jump to content

Talk:Klaus Thielmann/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Maxwhollymoralground (talk · contribs) 14:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: History6042 (talk · contribs) 22:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article, good luck. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Discussion

[edit]

The only image in the article is captioned. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is also relevant so it passes 6b. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It also has a useable copyright so it passes 6a as well. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article has never been edit warred on so it is stable and passes criteria five. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For it being neutral the only issue I could find was it saying notable but I removed that. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It therefore passes 4. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no issues with too much detail. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the prose I don't understand what "Thielmann additionally deployed 2,000 National People's Army members in the health sector in all Bezirke from December 1989." means. Is there a better why to write this? History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind I found a way to rewrite it. History6042😊 (Contact me) 02:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few more edits to the prose for grammar and now that's all good. History6042😊 (Contact me) 03:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to cover all major details. History6042😊 (Contact me) 03:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig found nothing wrong. History6042😊 (Contact me) 03:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck

[edit]

Time for a source spotcheck. History6042😊 (Contact me) 03:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citaion 1 is wrong, it says nothing about Quoos or Sorbian High School. History6042😊 (Contact me) 03:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the fact that the 1st citation is already used incorrectly twice I am going to have to fail this unless you fix this. History6042😊 (Contact me) 03:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Number 3 says what it needs to. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, I am going to pass this. History6042😊 (Contact me) 23:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the fail, @History6042:, you have to give the nominator time to fix the article. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Klaus_Thielmann/GA1&oldid=1267548326"