Talk:August Kork/GA1
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Shearonink in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will give this article a review for possible Good Article status. Shearonink (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 04:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- will take another pass but everything looks good so far. Shearonink (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Ran the copyvio tool and none were found. Shearonink (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- It enhances the article that the writer-editor was able to get a photo of the man.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- I tried to go through this article with a fine-toothed comb but I can only find a few quibbles that are more a matter of personal preference but that probably need to be dealt with going forward (if the nominator wants to go for a possible FA). The amount of redlinked non-articles is visually jarring, I think their numbers need to be pruned down a bit but other than that I think this article is well-written, impeccably-sourced, conveys the facts but holds the narrative timeline. I am not that familiar with the finer points of Soviet military history but the ends of Kork and his wife - what they went through before they both died - gets me every time. Every time. Shearonink (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
This article is on hold until I can do a few more readthroughs. So far I have been unable to be much, if anything that need fixing. Shearonink (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Pleasure to read, job well-done. Shearonink (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)