Talk:Ouvrage La Ferté

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ouvrage La Ferté/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• a (Disambiguations): b Linkrot c Alt text

• no dabs found by the tools;
• ext links all work;
• Alt text could be added to the images, although this is just a suggestion and is not a GA requirement.

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• I made a few tweaks as part of my review, please check that you agree with these;
• I think that generally the article is using US English variation, which is fine, however, the word "metres" appears a couple of times (this is British English spelling). I think this is occuring because of the conversion templates. I think if you want them to use US spelling, you need to add the following code: "|sp=us";
• I suggest wikilinking the term "salient" on first mention;
• I suggest adding a small clause here explaing why it was too late (the start of the war, presumably): "It was too late to be built, with a projected construction time of 18 months";
• in the Design and construction section, what is a "cloche" - is there some way this can be explained, or linked? (possibly Maginot line#Armoured cloches);
• in the Manning section, there is an issue with punctuation: "The 1940 manning of the ouvrage under the command of Lieutenant Bourguignon. comprised 97 men and 3 officers of the 155th Fortress Infantry Regiment (155th RIF) and the 169th Position Artillery Regiment (169th RAP)";
• there is some inconsistency in style presentation, for instance "2nd Army" and "Second Army" - these should be the same as they are essentially proper nouns;
• in the References section, the ISBN for one of the works doesn't seem to be correct. Can you please check this if possible?

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• No issues.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• No issues.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• No issues

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• No issues.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':

• A map showing dispositions, nearby locations and directions of attack would be a great addition (suggestion only)

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• Passing for GA, good work. I'd be obliged if you would look into the ISBN issue when you get a chance, although it is a very minor thing. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)