Talk:Vorbunker/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 23:58, 15 January 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.	wl Bormann in the body Done wl Helmuth Weidling and, for context, explain that he was the last commander of the Berlin Defence Area Done the name of the formation was LVI Panzer Corps, which sort of gets rid of the need to point out it was German Done explain who Krebs and Burgdorf were Done Can you please check Beevor about the Goebbels' deaths? I think there is a bit more detail there. Aren't there several versions of how their deaths occurred? Given they lived in the Vorbunker, it is worth providing the couple of versions of their demise (just like that of their children) Done Yes, there are several versions which I have added with links and cites. Kierzek (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] that's it really, not much to address. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Bormann is mentioned in the lead, but doesn't appear in the body of the article. He is of interest, but WP:LEAD is clear that anything in the lead needs to be mentioned in the body with citation. Done Copy edit addition with cite as to Martin Bormann added to body. Kierzek (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.	After the Battle needs its OCLC added, available from Worldcat. I have the ISSN number. ISSN: 0306-154X. Want me to add that? Kierzek (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Sure, any numerical identifier is fine. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC). Done* Kierzek (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC); OCLC now added, thanks to Diannaa. Kierzek (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	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.	~~Placing on hold for seven days for a few prose points to be addressed~~ Passing, well done! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]