Talk:Alsos Mission/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Σ (talk · contribs) 01:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a quick look at it, and in general it is good. I will add some comments here after reading it more thoroughly. →Σ τ c. 02:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...discern how far the Germans had gone towards creating an atomic bomb. I believe that discern German progress towards the creation of an atomic bomb. reads better.
- Sounds good. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alsos Mission personnel followed close behind the front lines...capture by the Soviet Union. Seems unnecessarily long. I would try splitting it in two.
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In 1943, Brigadier General Wilhelm D. Styer... Wikipedia:LINK#General_points_on_linking_style discourages links next to each other.
- Unavoidable. One is a rank and the other links to the name. I have had many Featured Articles with this. We can agree to disagree, as MOS:LINK is not required for GAN. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. →Σ τ c. 01:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...General George Marshall... Same as above.
It was not restricted to those involving nuclear weapons. What was it restricted to, then? Or was it restricted at all?
The Chief of Army Intelligence, Major General George V. Strong, appointed Lieutenant Colonel Boris Pash... Again, adjacent links.

Pash met with Marshal of Italy Pietro Badoglio Adjacent links again.
Is the whole first paragraph sourced to ref 12?
- Yes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...radioactive poisons was sufficient to warn General Dwight D. Eisenhower... Adjacent links again.

There is a single-sentence paragraph at the bottom, although it isn't a major concern.
- Actually it has two. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

they met with the intelligence staff General of the Army Douglas MacArthur's AFPAC. Adjacent links.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'm happy with the article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: