Talk:Battle of Narva (1944)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: None found

Linkrot: I dead link repaired, one tagged.diff

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   WP:LEAD suggests a maximum of four paragraphs, suggest consolidating the six into three or four.

   ''The Soviet Kingisepp–Gdov Offensive, Narva Offensives (15–28 February, 1–4 March, and 18–24 March) were part of the Red Army Winter Spring Campaign of 1944. needs an "and" after "Kingisepp–Gdov Offensive"

   a quick military occupation of Estonia as a base for air and seaborne attacks against Finland and an invasion to East Prussia surely "of" rather than "to"?

   Terrain: there is a mixture of tenses in this section; Terrain played a significant role in operations around Narva; The 45 kilometre wide strip of land is entirely bisected by the Narva River and has large areas of wilderness. I accept that the basic geography has probably not chnaged, but roads may have in the succeeding 66 years. The tense change is confusing.

   The conscription call was received with popular support and the mobilisation brought together 38,000 men[27] which were formed into seven border guard regiments... "which" should be "who"

   The Soviet Long Range Aviation assaulted the Estonian capital of Tallinn Could do with the insertion of "branch" after "Long Range Aviation"

   The result of the air raid was the opposite to the Soviet aim as people felt disgusted by the Soviet atrocities; a little clumsy, perhaps "was the opposite of the Soviet aim"?

 Done All recommended edits have been completed. I have changed the second paragraph of Terrain to past tense; I bet the area does not have large areas of wilderness any more. Someone with local knowledge will have to review the first paragraph and tell us if the swamps etc are still there. Diannaa ^TALK 17:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I know the area and the large areas of wilderness are still there. Nevertheless, I believe the fact is not relevant for the perspective of the battle and the section reads better in the past tense. Although it may be worth mentioning in the Aftermath section that most of the historical terrain has remained the same, allowing the local Vaivara Parish to promote the area as a military historical theme park. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   One dead link as noted above; all other refernces check out, assume good faith for off-line sources.

 Done Reference corrected

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Ok, just a few things above to be addressed. On hold for seven days

   Fine, thanks for your quick response. I am happy to list this as a Good Article. Congratulations! 22:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article. Diannaa ^TALK 23:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll second to that! Good luck with your work elsewhere! --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats Jaan with this achievement! --Termer (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)