Talk:Berge Meere und Giganten/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 11:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I have never read any books by Döblin, but would like some day :)

   He's great, and there's always something new to find. Sindinero (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

   Lead should be larger. For example, the section "Genesis and publication" is not summarized in the lead--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 19:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

    Done Sindinero (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

   Will continue later

   I pretty much enjoyed the prose. Imagine one will read from top to bottom, and then discovers that there is no English translation available to date :P.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Use a consistent style, eg " 790-792" and then "155-7" (you should use the first version, as the latter is misleading)

    Done Sindinero (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall: Great article!

   Pass/Fail: