Talk:Police Battalion 322/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AugusteBlanqui (talk · contribs) 09:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This certainly is a good article. I enjoyed reviewing it. Congratulations. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

1. The article should be clearly written, in good prose, with correct spelling and grammar. Check for coherent formatting, good organization of the article into sections, appropriate use of wikilinks, and other aspects of the Manual of Style referred to in the Good article criteria. After you have read the article, check that the lead section is a good summary and introduction to the topic.

• This is a well-written article: concise and accessible, devoid of spelling and grammatical errors. Sections are nicely organized--good flow to the article. Extensive and appropriate use of wikilinks throughout.

• Minor comment on style: rather heavy use of passive voice, unavoidable in some cases but could be copy edited in one or two cases: "Sixty-five were killed during the roundups, and another 550 executed the next day." becomes "These troops killed 65 during the roundups, and executed 550 the next day."

2. The article should be factually accurate according to reliable sources, with inline citations (typically using either footnotes or Harvard (parenthetical) references) for the six types of material named in the GA criteria.[5] The article should not copy text from sources without quotation or in text attribution, and it should not contain any original synthesis of source material, or other forms of original research. Perfectly formatted citations are not required. Read the detailed guidance at WP:DEADREF before addressing any non-functional URLs.

• The sources used are reliable--primarily recent, highly reputable university press texts. I suggest the Showalter citation be used in the lead after the first sentence of the second paragraph. A minor suggestion would be to add one or two more direct quotes from Beorn.

3. The article should broadly cover the topic without unnecessary digressions. The article may, and sometimes should, go into detail, but it is not required to be comprehensive.

• Scope of the article is good. One sentence about the outcome of the investigations after the quote would be helpful.

4. The article should be written from the neutral point of view: this viewpoint strives to represent all other views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Ensure that the article describes disputes without engaging in them.

• NPOV throughout based on reputable texts.

5. The article should be stable, with no ongoing edit wars: constructive article improvement and routine editing does not apply here.

• Stable.

6. The article should comply with image use policy. Images are encouraged but not required. Any images used should be appropriate to the article, have captions and free licenses or valid fair use rationales.

• Complies.

7. The article is free of obvious copyright violations. Reviewers can use several tools, as well as Google searches, to help establish whether material has been plagiarised or cut-and-paste from some of the electronic sources used; but this is not a trivial undertaking.

• Earwig's Copyvio Detector no issue. Double-checked direct quotes to confirm.