Talk:Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs) 22:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a little bit of time to go over it completely. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 22:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~Heinz Guderian, saying that;...~~ ~~Link "Krupp" and "Albert Speer" in the body of the article~~
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~The section "History" could be relabeled "Development", since the first sentence reads "The development history of...".(just a suggestion, not req'd for GA)~~ ~~The article "Panzer VIII Maus" could be removed from the "See Also" section, The "See also" section can be removed, since all of the articles are already in the article, per WP:SEEALSO.~~ ~~Standardize locations for the publishers in the references.(just a suggestion, not req'd for GA)~~ ~~Standardize hyphens in your isbn numbers(just a suggestion, not req'd for GA)~~
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Thanks for the review, I'll get onto these now. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it seems the issues and suggestions you raised were rather easy to address so I have done them all in a single edit. Please double check or add anymore comments if you haven't finished with the article. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through a final copyedit. This is passing. Thanks for your responses.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 20:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedit and thanks again for the review. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]