Talk:Gottlob Berger/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 11:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd).
• Linkrot: no dead links [4] (no action req'd)
• Alt text: one of the images lacks alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (not a GA requirement, suggestion only).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (seems to be picking up combinations of proper nouns and common words which cannot be avoided) [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed (no action req'd).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • Prose is a little repetitive here: "In the late 1920s he rejoined the Nazi Party and joined the paramilitary Sturmabteilung (SA) in 1931." Perhaps consider something like: "In the late 1920s he rejoined the Nazi Party and became a member of the paramilitary Sturmabteilung (SA) in 1931."
  • "After the murder of SA leader Ernst Röhm in July 1934..." I'm assuming Berger wasn't involved in this but I wonder if someone might get the wrong idea from the wording adopted?
  • The prose here is also a little repetive: "After the Balkan Campaign of April 1941, the LSSAH was expanded to divisional strength, and after the invasion of the Soviet Union commenced, a sixth Waffen-SS division...", consider instead something like: "After the Balkan Campaign of April 1941, the LSSAH was expanded to divisional strength, and following the commencement of the invasion of the Soviet Union, a sixth Waffen-SS division..."
  • Date range format is incorrect per WP:DATERANGE, for instance "1939–1940" should be shortened to "1939–40".
  • Some inconsistency in the presentation of figures, for instance: "more than 1000 Romanian Volksdeutsche" vs " The "national legions" each numbered 1,000" (see MOS:NUM for guidance).
  • "Himmler was lukewarm on his initial proposal, but as casualties started to mount in 1942, Himmler changed his mind...", consider more simply: "Himmler was lukewarm on his initial proposal, but as casualties started to mount in 1942, he changed his mind..."
  • I made a few tweaks [7] to fix a few obvious typos etc.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

  • The article seems to be well referenced with all major points supported by an inline citation
  • No issues with OR I could see.
  • A couple of minor issue with referencing:
    • The Nicholand Rennell work appears in the references list but does not appear to have been used as a short citation. Should it be moved to a "further reading" section?
    • In the references section I wonder if it is necessary to use constructions like "New York, New York". I realize you are following a consistent presentation of locations with city and state; however, it is generally not required for internationally renown cities. It also creates a almost silly situation in one instance where the reference information reads: "New York, New York: New York University Press" (suggestion only).

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • The article seems to cover all major aspects of the topic in some detail but doesn't go into unnecessary detail.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues I could see.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

  • Images seem to be free / PD and have the req'd information / templates.
  • Captions look fine.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Overall this looks fine to me, just a couple of mostly prose / formatting points to address. Anotherclown (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • All done. These are my edits. Thanks for the review, Ac! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
      • No worries, those changes look fine to me. Closing the review as successful. Anotherclown (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)