Talk:40th Infantry Division Slavonska/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs) 13:26, 20 January 2016 (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.	"At midnight, General der Panzertruppen Heinrich von Vietinghoff issued orders ..." It is not clear what role Vietinghoff had. Earlier in the text you write "Generalmajor Walter Neumann-Silkow's 8th Panzer Division ...", this implies that Vietinghoff was not the commander of the 8th Panzer Division, what unit was he commanding? von Vietinghoff was the corps commander, clarified in the text. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] You seem to be using British English, "Motorised" versus "Motorized", "organisation", "mobilised" etc. The "Notes" section then compares military ranks to its US equivalent and not the British ranks. Is this not a bit inconsistent? I don't think so, the use of US ranks is basically because that is what Stein uses, the rest is per my normal usage, Australian English. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] "... and called Sarajevo to request reinforcements" Is this self evident? Who did they call at Sarajevo? Yugoslav Supreme Command, added that to text. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.	You use both 10 and 13 digit ISBN numbers, can this be unified? Yep, done, also added an oclc I'd missed
	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).	Is http://www.niehorster.org/ reliable? I've certainly found him to be. In areas where he overlaps with other sources, he gets it right consistently. I've used him for two FL orders of battles and several A-Class articles, and he's been accepted so far. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
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.

All done, MisterBee1966! Thanks for the review. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]