Talk:Mikhail Petrov (general)

Mikhail Petrov (general) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Mikhail Petrov (general) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 16, 2016	Good article nominee	Listed
October 12, 2016	WikiProject A-class review	Approved
January 2, 2017	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Military history: Biography / Russian & Soviet / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	World War II task force

Additional information:
/
	This article has passed an A-Class review.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mikhail Petrovich Petrov (general)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 13:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well constructed article. Will comeback with suggestions within a day or two. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience Kges1901. Owing to my educational constraints I was unable to review the article. I will free my 13 September, and will start the review soon from then. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1

Sentence 2; Consider rewording it as After graduating from the fourth grade, he worked as a metalworker at the Putilov Plant and also as a chauffeur.
Sentence 3; It must be "The Bolsheviks" not just "Bolsheviks".

Both fixed. Kges1901 (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2

Last sentence; "The 17th Mechanized Corps was a cadre-strength formation equipped with only 36 tanks" is unnecessary, because the size of the corps has nothing to do with the subject.

I think that it is relevant to note that the corps was not at full strength, because it provides context for what happened after Operation Barbarossa. Kges1901 (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3

Why years were not mentioned with any of the dates? Please correct this.

MOS:DATEVAR says that years can be omitted if there is no risk of ambiguity. I believe I have made it clear that the events described in the WWII section all happened in 1941. Kges1901 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The latter sentences in the first para are so confusing. Please revise them

Sentences revised. Kges1901 (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are my initial suggestions. Once these are addressed, I will suggest more if needed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16 September 2016

Para 2; sentence 6; It is said the army HQ was visited by some journalist, please make it clear whether it was HQ of the whole Red Army or of 50th Army.
Para; last sentence; Consider replacing "incorrectly" with "mistakenly".

Add a subsection with title "Death" as section 3.1 as the complete para is about it.
Para 3; Wiki-link "gangrene" at it's first use (article is available, Gangrene).

Lead

Consider splitting the lead into two paras.

Almost done to go. Once these are addressed, I shall pass the article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Changes done. Kges1901 (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
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):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]